VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY way of present revision petition the Union of India has challenged the order dated 19th September, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, allowing the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein to lead additional evidence in appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein moved an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the plea that Shri A.P. Dadoo was appointed as General Power of Attorney and designated as President of the Company vide resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of the Company dated 18.4.1982 and 2.9.1986. It was further claimed that in pursuance to the powers conferred on Shri A.P. Dadoo, he further delegated his powers to Shri B.M. Sharma vide power of attorney. These documents could not be produced inadvertently in trial Court and, therefore, it was claimed that these documents may be allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence. The application was contested by the Union of India primarily on the ground that this application has been moved at a belated stage in order to fill up the lacunae. It was further pleaded that these documents were not intentionally produced in the trial Court and, therefore, the application deserved to be dismissed.
(3.) THE lower Appellate Court took note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others, AIR 1997 SC 3 to hold that public interest cannot be permitted to be defeated on mere technicality or procedural defects which did not go to the root of such matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that there was sufficient power under the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just cause and that a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of procedural defect which is curable. The learned lower Appellate Court further took note of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Bant Kaur, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 419 to hold that non-filing of documents does not mean that those documents could not be produced on the later date to show that the person who filed the appeal, had the authority to file the same and then application was accordingly allowed.;