Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6040   OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.12533/2013)

BHAGUBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL                    Appellant(s)

                  VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. Heard  Mr.  Savant,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  J.S.  Attri,  

learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents.  

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated  

26.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in  

Special Civil Application No.2239 of 2013, whereby  

the High Court has declined to interfere with the  

order dated 30.1.2013 passed Below  Exhibit 46 in  

Regular Civil Appeal No.49 of 2011 which is pending

Page 2

2

before the District Judge, Surat.  

4. The appellant is facing eviction proceedings  

under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised  

Occupants) Act, 1971. The original  authority has  

passed eviction order against the appellant and the  

appeal preferred by the appellant is pending before  

the District Judge, Surat. During the course of that  

proceeding,  the  appellant  made  an  application  

bearing Exhibit No.46 to produce certain additional  

documents, which  application has  been rejected  by  

the learned Judge leading to the above order of the  

High Court.  

5. The submission of Mr. Savant, learned senior  

counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  is  that  the  

documents which were sought to be produced before  

the learned Judge, Surat, were already there before  

the  original  authority  and  he  relies  upon  the  

Rojnamcha dated 14.7.2009 which indicates the same.  

Learned counsel submits that the appellant had filed  

his reply before the original authority along with  

those documents (Pages 74 to 402). They were taken  

on record though not admitted in evidence. A copy of  

the same was given to the counsel for the other side

Page 3

3

as well.   

6. We have seen the order of the learned Judge  

passed  Below Exhibit 46. It is seen that among the  

documents which are mentioned in paragraph 5 of that  

order, documents at Sl. Nos.48 to 113 are of the  

year 2011, whereas the documents at Sl. Nos.1-47 are  

of the years from 1973 to 2000.  Obviously many of  

these documents are subsequent to the date of the  

Rojnamcha dated 14.7.2009, and they could not have  

been permitted to be filed at the appellate level.  

Mr.  Savant,  however,  fairly  states  that  the  

appellant is prepared to restrict his prayer to the  

documents which were there prior to 14.7.2009 and  

which were  produced before  the original  authority  

prior to the date of that order. He prays that he  

may be permitted to produce them in the appellate  

forum. He further submits that the appellant would  

like to produce some other documents as well.  

7. In view of what is stated above, we allow  

this appeal to this limited extent. The order of the  

High Court as well as the Appellate Authority are

Page 4

4

set  aside  to  this  limited  extent,  viz.  that  the  

documents  which  were  filed  before  the  original  

authority and which were dated prior to 14.7.2009,  

will  be  permitted  to  be  produced  before  the  

Appellate Authority. As far as the documents other  

than  these  are  concerned,  it  will  be  for  the  

appellant to apply to the Appellate Authority i.e.  

the District Judge, and it will be for him to decide  

whether to entertain it.   The appeal is disposed of  

accordingly.   

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

.........................J (MADAN B. LOKUR)

New Delhi; July 22, 2013.