Allahabad High Court
Ammar Raza And 4 Others vs Moaziz Husain (Since Deceased) 6 Others on 17 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22085 Court No. - 49 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 38 of 2025 Applicant :- Ammar Raza And 4 Others Opposite Party :- Moaziz Husain (Since Deceased) 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra,Imran Ahmad,Mustaqeem Ahmad Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The plaintiffs want to rely upon the evidence that they wish to produce in this Court for the first time-a sale deed-not produced before the Courts below.
The learned Counsel for the applicants for review would submit that this sale deed is a new and important evidence which despite exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge at the time when the suit and the appeal respectively were heard by the Courts below. The reason why despite due diligence, the sale deed dated 21.01.1989 upon which the applicants for review now seek to rely could not be produced is set forth in paragraph no. 27 of the affidavit filed in support of the application for review. In paragraph no. 27, it is averred:
"27. That the appellant on 01.09.2024 during discussion from his relatives who was present at the time of execution of sale deed received information about sale deed dated 21.1.1989 and 24.04.1998 deed no. 3251 and 24.04.1998 deed no. 3370 and map M/S Radha Bidi Company therefore during inspection of record he has succeed to obtained sale deed dated 21.1.1989 and 24.04.1998 deed no. 3251 and 24.04.1998 deed no. 3370 therefore he come to Allahabad for demonstrate aforesaid documentary evidence to his counsel and asked to his counsel about relevancy of the documentary evidence which has found by appellants on 01.09.2024 during discussion from his relatives who was present at the time of execution of sale deed therefore obtained certified copy on 06.09.2024 and 11.12.2024 which was not available either during the pendency of suit or first appeal or second appeal and after perusal the aforesaid documentary evidence he has foundhis second appeal has been dismissed on the ground this documentary evidence was not on the record as such without any further delay the appellant came to Allahabad and filed present review application along with new discovery evidence which was not on the possession and knowledge of appellant till the pendency of the present second appeal as such he could not be filed the aforesaid documentary evidence as such this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08.07.2024 dismiss the aforesaid appeal on merit........."
Now, it is well known that so far as a registered document is concerned, everyone is imputed constructive knowledge thereof to which the applicants for review would be no exception. Once documents are admitted to registration such as the sale deeds dated 21.01.1989 and 24.04.1998 and another deed also dated 24.04.1998, it is difficult to accept the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants for review that the said sale deeds were not within their knowledge, and, therefore, could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence. From the trial of the suit to the culmination of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court and then lodging the present second appeal, which came up for admission and dismissed summarily by the Court, there was ample time available to the applicants for review to discover these sale deeds.
The fact that the applicants for review did not produce these documents during trial and in appeal, as also through an application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. presented along with the motion to admit the second appeal to hearing, in the considered opinion of this Court does not entitle them to seek review of our order dated 08.07.2024, dismissing the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC.
This review application fails and is rejected.
Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Deepak