Satish Chand Surana vs Raj Kumar Meshram

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7446 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.30587 of 2019)

SATISH CHAND SURANA ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

RAJ KUMAR MESHRAM ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

(2) The appellant herein was the plaintiff in Civil

Suit No.30A/2017 on the file of the First Additional

District Judge, Balode, and the respondent was the

defendant. The parties are referred to by their

respective ranking before the Trial Court.

(3) The plaintiff filed the said suit for specific

performance of the Agreement dated 26.08.2015 said to

have been executed by the defendant in favour of the

plaintiff for sale of property No.395 and 396/1 having Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2021.12.20 16:45:21 IST Reason: 1 area 0.59 hectare and 0.05 hectare respectively,

totally measuring 0.64 Hectare situated at Village

Jagtara, Patwari Halka No.22, Balode. The suit was

proceeded ex-parte. On appreciation of the materials

placed on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

(4) The plaintiff filed an appeal, F.A. No.433 of

2018 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh

challenging the aforesaid judgment. During the

pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff filed an

application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of

Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) for production of

additional evidence. The High Court dismissed the

appeal by the impugned judgment, without considering

the said application. The plaintiff has challenged

the legality and correctness of the judgment of the

High Court in this appeal.

(5) Though notice was served on the

respondent/defendant but no one has entered

appearance on his behalf.

(6) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the materials placed on record.

(7) Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff

submits that the High Court has dismissed the first

2 appeal of the plaintiff without deciding the

application filed by him under Order XLI Rule 27 of

the CPC, seeking permission to adduce the additional

evidence. Learned Counsel further submits that the

appellant has a good case on merits.

(8) It is well-settled that, ordinarily, the

Appellate Court should not travel beyond the record

of the lower court. Section 107 of the CPC carves

out an exception to this general rule, enabling the

Appellate Court to take additional evidence subject

to the conditions prescribed in Order 41 Rule 27 of

the CPC. Thus, grant or refusal of the opportunity

for production of additional evidence at the

appellate stage is within the discretion of the

appellate court. Dismissal of the main appeal

without deciding the application for additional

evidence would result in miscarriage of justice.

The First Appellate court, being the last court of

facts and evidence, should permit the production of

additional evidence where the explanation furnished

by the party is satisfactory and the documents in

question are vital to establish the case.

(9) It is also necessary to observe here that the

3 application for permission to file additional

evidence should contain the list of documents giving

full particulars thereof and copies sought to be

filed as additional evidence should be served on the

other side. However, the High Court cannot

completely ignore the application filed by the

appellant and pronounce the judgment. If the

appellant makes out a case for allowing the

application, the material produced along with the

application has to be considered at the time of

final disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.

(10) In the instant appeal, it is clear that the

High Court has proceeded to dismiss the appeal

without considering the application filed by the

appellant-plaintiff. In our view, the High Court has

to consider the matter afresh in the light of the

observations made above.

(11) In the result, the appeal succeeds and is

accordingly allowed in part. The judgment of the

High Court impugned herein is set aside. The matter

is remitted back to the High Court for fresh

disposal in accordance with law and in view of the

observations made above.

4 (12) Pending application(s), if any, shall stands

disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

.......................J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

.......................J. [KRISHNA MURARI]

New Delhi;

December 6, 2021.

5 ITEM NO.36 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30587/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-06-2019 in FA No. 433/2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur)

SATISH CHAND SURANA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAJ KUMAR MESHRAM Respondent(s)

(IA No. 183937/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 06-12-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashutosh Ghade,Adv.

Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in part in terms of the signed

order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stands

disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed order is placed on the file.)

6