Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the order dated 11.12.2000 by which the learned First appellate Court allowed the application of the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and remanded the matter back to the trial court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that none of the condition of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been satisfied, more particularly, when the facts reveal that the party seeking permission to produce additional evidence was negligent inasmuch as the documents were within the knowledge of the respondent party. The copies of the documents were placed on record before the trial court but they did not choose to prove those documents and when trial court has drawn an adverse inference against the respondent then the order of the Appellate Court permitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is clearly beyond the scope of order 41 Rule 27 CPC. I perused the impugned order and Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
(3.) Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is an enabling provision for production of oral and documentary evidence, which was not produced or which was not admitted in evidence before the trial court, in the given facts and circumstances of the case as provided under Rule 27 of the Order 41 CPC. It is true that in the trial, if party do not want to place on record any document or party do not want to prove any document, it is choice of the party and that creates a valuable right to the other party. But if all the conditions are satisfied then the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to permit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27. Not only this but the Appellate Court has been vested with powers itself to require production of documents or to examine the witnesses for any other substantial cause.;