Swami Goverdhan Rangachariji & Ors. v. M/S. A.J. Printers

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. (ORAL)

1. By this petition, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 10th February, 2010 whereby an application of the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was dismissed by the appellate court.

2. The petitioners made an application before the appellate court to take on record certain additional documents in respect of resolution passed in the meeting of Board of Trustees on the ground that these documents could not be filed before trial court inadvertently and these documents were necessary for just decision of the case. The appellate court found that this contention of the petitioners was contrary to the testimony of PW-1, Sh. Raghu Nath Singh, recorded by the trial court wherein he had categorically 2010:DHC:1489 C.M. (M) No.323/2010 Page No.2 of 3 stated that there was no such resolution of the Board of Trustees. The appellate court also found that the grounds given in the application were not covered under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and, therefore, dismissed the application.

3. Order 41 Rule 27 reads as under:-

4. It is apparent that Order 41 CPC imposes a bar at taking additional evidence during appeal and this bar is lifted only under three circumstances as given in the Order itself. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners was covered under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (b) CPC. This submission of the petitioners has no force. The appellate court in this case had not required any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment rather the appellate court C.M. (M) No.323/2010 Page No.3 of 3 had considered that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners at the belated stage could not be allowed to be taken on record.