R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.2.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bansur, District Alwar, whereby he has dismissed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the petitioner for taking additional documents on record.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani & Ors. [ : (2001) 10 SCC 619], and Eastern Equipment & Sales Limited v. ING. Yash Kumar Khanna [ : (2008) 12 SCC 739] and Smt. Ramkanya Devi v. ADJ No. 5, Jaipur City & Anr., (a case decided by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10648/2010 on 28.3.2014), in order to plead that the proper stage for deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is at the time of final hearing of the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court has to consider whether the evidence which is sought to be produced at the appellate stage is relevant to the controversy involved, and whether the said evidence could have been produced after the exercise of due diligence or not. These issues cannot be decided prior to the final hearing of the appeal. They have to be decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in the case of Girraj Prasad & Ors. v. Smt. Tara Devi & Ors. [ : (2011) 1 WLC 461], this Court had clearly held that in case the application was filed after an inordinate delay and in case the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been decided on merit, the order passed by the learned Appellate Court does not deserve to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, since the application has been decided on merit, therefore, it does not deserve to be interfered with.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and considered the case law cited at the Bar.;