| Headnote |
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.27 – Applicationunder, allowed – Propriety of – Suit for injunction filed by theappellant-plaintiff against respondent-defendant – Suit dismissedby trial court – Appellant filed first appeal wherein respondent filedapplications u/Or. XLI, r.27 to produce additional evidence – FirstAppellate Court (FAC) dismissed the said applications, while allowedthe appeal filed by the appellant – In second appeal, High Courtinter alia allowed the applications filed by the respondent – Held: Inthe present case, the High Court opined that the documents proposedto be produced by the respondent were official records and publicdocuments which, if proved, could enable the Court to pronouncethe judgment and do complete justice to the parties – Said view ofHigh Court is impregnable.Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, rr.23, 23-A and25-29 – Suit for injunction filed by the appellant against respondent– Suit dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal whereinrespondent filed applications u/Or. XLI, r.27 to produce additionalevidence – First Appellate Court (FAC) allowed the appeal filed bythe appellant – In second appeal filed by the respondent, High Courtinter alia relegated the parties before the trial court for re-decidingthe suit – Propriety of – Held: While exercising discretion u/Or. XLI,r.23-A for remanding the cases, the Appellate Court is duty boundto keep in mind Or.XLI , rr.25 and 26 – There are two optionsavailable to the Appellate Court – First, it may record the evidenceitself by permitting the parties to produce evidence before it as perOr. XLI,r. 27 or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal underconsideration has arisen, to do so – In the present case, the HighCourt did not record any special reasons for relegating the partiesbefore the “trial court” to re-decide the suit – Only reason, which weighed with the High Court was that it was necessary to find outthe truth, as it is the duty of the Court – That could be done even bydirecting the FAC to record evidence, which it was competent to dowhile hearing the first appeal – For that, as per Or. XLI, r.25, theHigh Court could have framed the issues and referred them foradjudication before the FAC, against whose decree the secondappeal was preferred before the High Court – Considering thechequered history of the present litigation, the fact that the suit wasfiled in the year 1992, High Court directed to frame the points onwhich additional evidence could be adduced by the respondent andcall upon the FAC to record additional evidence – Impugnedjudgment of the High Court set aside to the extent it relegated theparties before the trial court.Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.27 – Applicationunder, to produce additional evidence, allowed – Implication of –Suit for injunction filed by the appellant against respondent – Suitdismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal whereinrespondent filed applications u/Or. XLI, r.27 to produce additionalevidence, dismissed – High Court inter alia allowed the applicationsfiled by the respondent – Plea of appellant inter alia that even ifthere was sufficient ground for allowing the applications filed bythe respondent for production of additional evidence, thegenuineness and the contents of the additional documents wouldhave to be proved by the party placing reliance – Held: High Courtmade it clear that the fact that the applications are allowed per se isnot to give any direction to straightaway exhibit the additionaldocuments, but that it could be exhibited subject to proof –Documents will have to be proved in accordance with law. |
