- (1.) The plaintiff, who was non-suited by the trial Court, preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff chose to file an application invoking the provisions under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') praying to permit the plaintiff to adduce further evidence, namely, the statement of the defendant, her husband and others given during the criminal proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. It has been contended by the plaintiff that the statements given by the defendant and others before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, are quite relevant to dispose of the present appeal pending before the first Appellate Court, inasmuch as, the said statements directly relate to the subject matter pending before the first Appellate Court. It has also been stated by the plaintiff that in order to pronounce the judgement effectively, fairly and justly, those statements, which were recorded, subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgement by the trial Court, are very much relevant for the purpose of determining the issue involved in the appeal. The defendant contended that the provisions under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, those documents which have come into existence later were permitted to be marked at the stage of appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first Appellate Court had not given any reason for allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. He would also submit that the proceedings before the Criminal Court are not binding upon the Civil Court, which deals with civil lis. He would also submit that the present application was filed about one year after the date when the statements had been given by the defendant and others before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
(3.) I find that there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant. Firstly, those statements had been given by the defendant and others before the Criminal Court in connection with the cheques in issue before the first Appellate Court only after the verdict was recorded by the trial Court. Of course, there is some delay in filing the application immediately after recording the statements of the defendant and others by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The plaintiff is supposed to file such an application invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC only after obtaining certified copies of those statements. He would have taken some time to secure the certified copies of the statements from the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. I do not propose to reject the plea of the plaintiff just because there was some delay in filing the application, more especially, when the appeal itself is pending disposal before the First Appellate Court.;