J.C.VERMA,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.12.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which application of the petitioner under order 41 Rule 27 had been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court in the appeal filed by him. The application was moved by the present revision petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for producing on record by way of additional document, the sale -deed in regard to plot No. 199, Rishi Galav Nagar, Jaipur. It was further stated in the application that he had got his written statement amended in the trial court to the effect that two shops have been constructed on plot No. 199 which was denied by the plaintiff. The fact of any shops being vacant or being let out were also denied by the plaintiff. He stated that to prove the falsehood of the averments made by the plaintiff, he wants to place on record the sale -deed dated 19.10.1992 of which certified coy had been obtained on 27.12.1999. The lower appellate court had dismissed the application on the ground that this very document was in the knowledge of the applicant revision petitioner, discussion of which had also been made before the trial court. For the reason that from the very beginning he had the knowledge of the same, but still he had not choosen to produce it before the trial court nor any such application was moved; it was observed that the existence and the knowledge of the document being available with the revisiosn petitioner, to allow him to place the document on record at this stage, shall not be in the interest of justice. Being aggrieved against the said order, the revision petitioner had come up in the revision petition with the only submission that the application for producing on record the additional document could not be dismissed at this stage and should have been considered at the time of deciding the appeal itself.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relies on a judgment in the case of Union of India v. Smt. Parvati Devi and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1425/2000, wherein it was observed, whether the court requires additional evidence for the pronouncement of judgment or not, will depend upon the consideration of the main appeal along with the application for additional evidence in accordance with law and in the light of Order 41 Rule 27, CPC. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 was dismissed which was moved in the first appeal, which appeal had not still been admitted. Counsel also relies on a judgment in the case of Mohan Das v. Bachan Lal 2000 WLC (Raj.) UC 228 wherein it was held that such like applications should be decided with the appeal and not before. A direction was given to the lower appellate court to decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with the appeal itself. To the same effect is the judgment in the case of Bhikharam and Anr. v. Shri Shantilal 1998 WLC (Raj.) UC 740.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent relies on a judgment in the case of Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh : AIR1999SC482 wherein it was observed as under: We have referred to the application for additional evidence filed by the tenant before the Rent Tribunal and the fact that one of the documents said to have been filed along with the application was not filed at that time and interpolated into the records much later. We also find that the application was not given a separate number. The rejection of the application was made part of the order in the main appeal. It would have been better if the application had been given a separate number and an order had been passed thereon separately. But that is not a matter of grave concern. What is to be noted is that in the application, the documents sought to be filed as additional evidence were described vaguely in Paragraph 5 as photo copies of the passport and the ticket. It is absolutely necessary that every application for permission to file additional evidence should contain a list of documents giving full particulars thereof such as date, parties thereto and description. Apart from that each document should also bear a certificate of endorsement made by the counsel or the party that the said document was the one referred to in the affidavit or application of the party. The application must also specify the number of pages of each document filed therewith. Whenever such applications are filed in pending matters, the copies thereof and copies of the documents sought to be filed as additional evidence should be served on the other side after being duly certified as true copies by the applicant or his counsel. Appropriate rules have to be framed in this regard also. ;