2025:JHHC:16766 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6497 of 2014 1. Surendra Sao son of Late Baijnath Sao 2. Jitendra Sao, son of Late Baijnath Sao 3. Matukdhari Sao, son of Late Rupan Sao Sl. 1 to 3 all are resident of Village Checharia, P.O. Nagar Untari, P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa ..... Petitioners Versus 1. Gulab Sao, son of Late Jagarnath Sao, resident of village Checharia, P.O. Nagar Untari, P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa 2. Arun Gareri, son of Late Surajdeo Gareri, 3. Ramdeo Garerri, son of Late Ramdhari Gareri 4. Govind Gareri, son of Late Ramdhari Gareri 5. Manik Chandra Sao, son of Late Sobran Sao Sl. No.2 to 5 all are resident of village Pindaria, P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untari, District – Garhwa. 6. Rajendra Sao, son of Late Baijnath Sao 7. Dablu @ Dharmendra Sao, son of Late Baijnath Sao Sl. No. 6 and 7 both are resident of village Checharia, P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa. …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : ----- 9/24.06.2025 The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I in Title Appeal No.16 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the application under order XLI Rule 27 of CPC r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that on 01.11.2010, the present petitioner / appellant / defendant moved before the First Appellate Cout to adduce certain documents for evidence, which they claim to have handed over to the conducting counsel on their behalf in the Trial Court. No reference has been made as to what documents, the petitioners wanted to adduce and what was the specific reason that prevented them from not adducing the same before the learned Trial Court. Considering the nebulas nature of the petition, it was rejected by the First Appellate Court against which the instant writ petition has been preferred. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the documents were required for proper adjudication of the case, which was a sale-deed dated 06.03.1980 executed between Kodu Sahu and Gulab Sao. 2025:JHHC:16766 2 4. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to raise cogent reasons in failing to adduce into evidence any relevant document before the Trial Court. Order XLI Rule 27 reads as under: “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. -(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or] (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined." (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” 5. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148, 36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. 37. The appellate court should not ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. 6. In the present case from the impugned order, it is manifest that no details of the documents which were given in the first appellate Court. Further, no 2025:JHHC:16766 3 cogent reason was assigned for their non-production before the learned Trial Court. Plea of counsel’s inability to move the Court cannot be said to be a legitimate ground. 7. Under the circumstance, the writ petition is shorn of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 8. I.A. if any, stands disposed of. 9. From the stage of trial as received from the first appellate court, it appears that, disposal of the appeal is stalled because of nonavailability of the Lower Court Records. 10. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Garhwa is directed to look into the matter and take steps to make available the LCR to the First Appellate Court and fix responsibility and take appropriate action against the staff responsible for not sending it to the Appellate Court. 11. In the event the LCR cannot be traced out, the appeal be heard and disposed of after construction of record, within three months of this order. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) R.Kumar