2017 (4) TMI 1490 - DSC - Indian Laws

Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court - existence of old dispute amongst appellants and respondents pertaining to property in question - HELD THAT - Neither it was pleaded in the written statement by appellants/defendants that any such proceedings ever took place before SEM in year 1987 nor afore elicited additional document sought to be placed on record was placed before the Trial Court during Trial at any stage of the matter nor the said document is with respect to the portion of the suit property bearing no. 310, Chuna Bhatti, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. It is the version of appellants/defendants as elicited from para-9 of reply on merits in written statement that defendants were living in the suit property as owners in their own rights and their possession at the most can be termed as adverse or hostile and too that after the order passed by the Probate Court is upheld by the High Court. The lapse and failure on the part of the applicant/appellant no-1/defendant no-1 to bring on record the document in question alongwith the written statement or any time later thereto, even during the course of evidence or later with permission of Court; brings into fore gross negligence on the part of applicant/appellant no-1 in production of the document in question at the opportune time before the Trial Court or even mentioning the same in the pleadings in the written statement before the Trial Court. This disentitles applicant/appellant no-1 for production in additional evidence, the document(s) sought to be placed on record. The application under consideration being devoid of merits, being not maintainable is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Application for bringing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The applicant sought to introduce a document, a Court Notice under Section 107/111 of Cr.P.C, dated 08.04.1987, claiming it revealed an old dispute regarding the property in question. The respondent opposed, arguing the document was irrelevant to the appeal, did not establish ownership rights, and was a dilatory tactic after 11 years of pending appeal.

2. The legal provision under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC allows for additional evidence in specific circumstances. The applicant failed to show that the Trial Court unjustly rejected evidence or that due diligence could not have produced it earlier. The applicant's negligence in not presenting the document earlier was highlighted.

3. The respondent's written statement did not mention any prior criminal proceedings related to the property dispute, and the document in question was not linked to the suit property. The Court emphasized the importance of timely disclosure and the consequences of failing to present crucial evidence during the trial.

4. Precedents were cited to support the importance of consistent pleadings and the impact of contradictory claims on a party's case. The Court referenced cases where belatedly introduced documents were admitted due to their relevance to the core issues, contrasting with the current situation.

5. The Court dismissed the application, citing the applicant's failure to produce the document in a timely manner and the lack of merit in introducing it at this stage. The judgment emphasized the need for caution in allowing additional evidence, especially when significant delays are involved, and highlighted the applicant's negligence in handling the crucial document.