[2025:RJ-JP:29764] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 45/2014 Smt. Sudha Gupta W/o Shri Pawan Kumar, Station Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawaimadhopur ----Appellant Versus 1. Vyapar Mandal Through Its President, Station Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawaimadhopur ----Respondent No. 1-Defendant 2. Purushotam Khandelwal S/o Shri Govind Narain Mahajan, Khandelwal, Station Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawaimadhopur ----Respondent No. 2-Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. J P Goyal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 04/08/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Gangapur City (for short 'the first appellate Court) in civil appeal No. 11/2008, by which the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by plaintiff and appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Gangapur City (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 44/1997, whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the original plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:29764] (2 of 4) [CSA-45/2014] Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff, filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against respondent No. 1-defendant (for short 'the defendant'). The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed before the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff had sold the disputed property to appellant by registered sale deed dated 19.08.2009, as such appellant was impleaded as a party under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC vide order dated 16.04.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2013 dismissed the application(s) filed by the plaintiff and the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the first appellate Court while dismissing the application filed by the appellant & plaintiff clearly mentioned that they were know about the existence of the documents but she had not shown any bonafide reason for submitting the documents at belated stage. So, the first appellate Court had not evaluate the documents in question. So, the order passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the first appellate Court to decide the matter afresh after considering the documents filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the application filed by them because there was no reason to file the [2025:RJ-JP:29764] (3 of 4) [CSA-45/2014] documents at belated stage. So, the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant purchased the disputed property from the plaintiff and appellant was impleaded a party vide order dated 16.04.2012. While dismissing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the first appellate Court observed that the appellant had not shown any bonafide reason for filing the documents at belated stage. In my considered opinion, during the pendency of the first appeal, the appellant has purchased the disputed property. So, there was no occasion for her to file the documents at early stage. The first appellate Court has dismissed the application without appreciating the documents filed by appellant. So, judgment of the first appellate Court with regard to dismissal of the appeal as well as dismissal of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC deserve to be set aside. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The order passed by the first appellate Court dated 31.10.2013 with regard to dismissal of appeal as well as dismissal of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first appellate Court to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 25.08.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:29764] (4 of 4) [CSA-45/2014] Record be sent back to the first appellate Court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/45