Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (6) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1435 - SC - Indian LawsOwner of the suit land - title over the suit land - plot of land situated near Krishnarajapuram Railway Station, which is around 14 KMs away from Bangalore city - HELD THAT:- It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree Under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the Appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court. Similarly, the powers of the first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to take note of the law on this issue. Application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code - HELD THAT:- The High Court committed another error when it rejected the application filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. This application should have been allowed for more than one reason. First, there was no one to oppose the application. In other words, the Respondents were neither served with the notice of appeal and nor served with the application and hence they did not oppose the application. Second, the Appellant averred in the application as to why they could not file the additional evidence earlier in civil suit and why there was delay on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate stage. Third, the averments in the application were supported with an affidavit, which remained un-rebutted. Fourth, the application also contained necessary averment as to why the additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy involved in appeal. Fifth, the additional evidence being in the nature of public documents and pertained to suit land, the same should have been taken on record and lastly, the Appellant being the Union of India was entitled to legitimately claim more indulgence in such procedural matters due to their peculiar set up and way of working - the application filed by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code deserved to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by permitting the Appellant to file additional evidence. The other inevitable consequence is that the case has to be remanded either to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits or to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. The civil suit is now restored to its file. The Trial Court, i.e., District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, is directed to retry the civil suit on merits. The additional evidence filed by the Appellant is taken on record. The Respondents are afforded an opportunity to file additional evidence in support of their case in rebuttal - the District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru are directed to decide the civil suit expeditiously and preferably within 6 months from the date of party's appearance before him. Parties to appear before the District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru on 01.08.2016. Application disposed off.
|