9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful admission of additional evidence in appeal. 2. Improper dismissal of the suit against non-appealing defendants under Order 41, Rule 33. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Wrongful Admission of Additional Evidence in Appeal: The appellant contended that the Subordinate Judge improperly admitted additional evidence during the appeal without recording reasons as required under Order 41, Rule 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The court acknowledged that no order was passed recording reasons for admitting Ex. D. 9 series, constituting a contravention of Order 41, Rule 27(2). The court emphasized that admitting fresh evidence at the appellate stage is a serious matter, potentially prolonging litigation and resulting in failure of justice. Order 41, Rule 27(1) confines the power to admit additional evidence within narrow limits, distinguishing between evidence wrongly rejected in the trial court (Rule 27(1)(a)), evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence (Rule 27(1)(b)), and evidence required by the appellate court to pronounce judgment (Rule 27(1)(c)). The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in 'Arjan Singh v. Karthar Singh', which held that additional evidence admitted contrary to Order 41, Rule 27 must be ignored. The court concluded that while the Subordinate Judge's failure to record reasons was a serious oversight, it did not automatically render the evidence inadmissible. Instead, the burden shifted to the party relying on the additional evidence to justify its admission under Order 41, Rule 27(1). The court inferred that the lower court admitted Ex. D. 9 series as necessary for delivering a correct judgment, thus justifying its admission under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(c). 2. Improper Dismissal of the Suit Against Non-Appealing Defendants Under Order 41, Rule 33: The appellant argued that the dismissal of the suit by the lower appellate court against defendants who had not filed appeals was improper and illegal. The court examined whether this could be justified under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., which allows the appellate court to pass a decree in favor of a party even if they have not filed an appeal or cross-appeal. The court noted that while the rule confers wide jurisdiction, its exercise must be judicial and not automatic. The Subordinate Judge had dismissed the entire suit based on his findings that the plaintiff was not the reversioner and the suit properties did not belong to Rami Reddi. However, the court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 33 should be based on a careful consideration of the circumstances, not as a matter of course. The court referred to several precedents, including 'Subramania Chettiar v. Sinnammal' and 'Venkatakrishnayya v. Chinna Veerareddi', which highlighted that the rule should be used with care and caution, and relief should not be granted to a party who has not appealed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that the present case did not fall within the recognized categories for exercising powers under Order 41, Rule 33. The plaintiff's suit involved separate properties held by different defendants under different alienations, with no community of interest between them. Therefore, dismissing the entire suit was not necessary to grant relief to the appealing defendants. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 33 and held that the Subordinate Judge's dismissal of the entire suit was improper. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with proportionate costs as against defendants 4, 8 to 12, 15, 20 to 22, and in so far as it related to 62 cents in item No. 1, items 2, 3, two-thirds share in item No. 4, and item No. 8. The appeal was allowed against the other defendants and in respect of items other than those mentioned above, restoring the decree of the District Munsif to that extent with proportionate costs throughout.
|
