HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus M/S CORK MANUFACTURING CO.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 27-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARYANA STAIB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
v. 
MIS CORK MANUFACTURING CO. 
AUGUST 27, 2007 
B 
(T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN,JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. JOO and Order 41, Rule 27-Applicationfor production of additional 
C evidence in second appeal before High Court-Legal notice issued by couf!Sel 
for plaintiff to defendant sought to be produced as admissible evidence at 
second appellate stage by latter which was lying with it during pendency of 
suit and first appeal-Jn appeal before Supreme Court, difference of opinion 
between the two Judges comprising the Bench with regard to decision of 
D High Court rejecting application under Or.41 r.27 as also dismissing the 
second appeal-Matter referred to larger Bench. 
The plaintiff-respondent was allotted an industrial plot by the defel!dant-
appellant Corporation as per allotment letter dated 24.11.1987. An agreement 
was entered into between the parties on 12.2.1988, Clause 8 whereof provided 
E that the allottee would start construction on the plot within a period of one 
and half years from the date of issuance of the allotment letter and would 
complete the erection and installation of machinery and commence production 
within a period of two years from the date of allotment of the plot, failing which 
the plot would be liable to be resumed and the security amount forfeited. The 
F appellant, finding that Clause 8 of the agreement was not complied with by 
the respondent, issued a show cause notice to it as to why the plot be not 
resumed and possession taken. According to the appellant, it issued the 
resumption order on 13.9.1991, and on 20.9.1991 took possession of the suit 
plot. On 5.10.1995 the respondent filed a civil suit in the Court of Addi. Civil 
Judge praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellan~ 
G from interfering with the possession of the suit plot and further reallotting it 
to any other person. It was submitted that Clause 8 of the agreement could 
not be complied with because of the high tension wires running over the suit 
plot and unless the same were removed the plaintiff was not in a position to 
raise any construction. The appellant filed a written statement stating that 
H 
508 
STATEINDUSTRIALDEVE. CORPN.1•. CORKMANUFACTURINGCO. 
509 
the suit was time barred since the plot had been resumed on 13.9.1991. It A 
was also submitted that the plaintiff suppressed the facts regarding knowledge 
of the resumption order and taking over possession of the suit plot. The trial 
court, however, decreed the suit; and the first appellate court affirmed the 
decree. In the second appeal, the defendant-appellant filed an application under 
Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. for acceptance of additional evidence, i.e. the legal B 
notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant showing 
acknowledgement of receipt of the resumption order dated 13.9.1991 by the 
plaintiff-respondent The High Court rejected the application and dismissed 
.> 
the second appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose therein. 
In the instant appeal filed by the defendant-Corporation, it was contended C 
for the appellant that the High Court erred in rejecting the application under 
Order 41, Rule 27 CPC since the additional evidence wa'> sought to be adduced 
in order to prove that the plaintiff had clear knowledge of the resumption order 
passed on 13.9.1991, and the suit having been filed on 5.10.1975 was barred 
by limitation. 
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: (By the Court): 
D 
In view of the difference of opinion, let this matter be placed before 
Hon'ble the Chief Justice oflndia for referring it to an appropriate larger E 
Bench. 
Per Chatterjee, J. 
1.1. The High Court was right in holding that the additional evidence, 
i.e. the legal notice issued by the counsel for the respondent to the appellant, F 
ought not to have been admitted at the stage of the second appeal. Keeping in 
view the principles enunciated by this Court, and applying the same to the 
facts and circumstances of the instant case, it cannot be assumed that the 
said additional evidence sought to be adduced under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, 
could not be produced in evidence before the trial court or before the first 
appellate court due to inadvertence and lack of proper legal advice. Admittedly, G 
the said legal notice was lying with the appellant during the pendency of the 
suit and also during the penden

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.