Court No. - 33
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7925 of 2018 Petitioner :- Karmveer Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- Kalicharan And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Vijay Gopal
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The instant petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge-V, Aligarh in Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2012 by which application 13G-2, filed by the petitioner/defendant, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., has been rejected.
A perusal of the record shows that Original Suit No. 649 of 1987 was instituted for cancellation of sale deed dated 01.04.1987 as well as for permanent prohibitory injunction by alleging that the sale deed was forged and did not carry the signature of Gajadhar. To prove that the signatures on the sale deed were forged, the plaintiff had submitted expert report. The defendant-petitioners had not submitted any expert report in support of their case. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 14.08.2012 decreed the plaintiff's suit and cancelled the sale deed dated 01.04.1987. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners, which is pending before the court below.
In this pending Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2012, an application was filed by the defendant-appellant (petitioners herein) for adducing additional evidence in the form of an expert report to rebut the expert report submitted by the plaintiff in support of his case.
This application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. has been rejected by the order impugned dated 12.09.2018 upon finding that no ground for adducing additional evidence in appeal, as contemplated by Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., was made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated 12.09.2018 by inviting attention of the Court to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., which is at page 92 of the paper book. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that sufficient cause was shown in the application as to why expert report could not be produced during the pendency of the suit. It has been submitted that the grounds stated in the application were sufficient to allow the petitioner to adduce additional evidence in appeal.
I have carefully perused the application. In the said application the only ground taken for not adducing the expert report at the trial stage is that the counsel, who was appearing on behalf of the petitioners before the trial court, had not advised the petitioners to file expert report in rebuttal.
The ground taken, in view of the Court, is not sufficient to enable production of additional evidence as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Pkb/