# Raj Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 669
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-29
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 6245 of 2016
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43506
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Additional Evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Rejection Upheld- Petitioners challenged
appellate order refusing additional documents in eviction appeal under U.P. Urban Buildings Act -
Held, petitioners failed to prove due diligence, prior unavailability despite efforts, or necessity for
appellate judgment; evidence sought only to patch trial gaps, violating Order 41 Rule 27 conditions.
(Paras 1, 4, 5)

Due Diligence Requirement - Non-Compliance - Appellate court rejected late stage documents
absent proof of trial court refusal, non-existence, or diligence lapse - Held, Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa)
bars filling evidentiary lacunae; appellants cannot improve weak cases on appeal without satisfying
statutory thresholds. (Paras 5, 6)

## Text

3 All. Raj Kumar Agarwal Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
669

(c) For clauses (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) or (m);

(i) In case of sentence of imprisonment, from the date of expiry of the period of
sentence;

(ii) In the case of sentence of fine, from the date of payment or recovery thereof;

(iii) In the case of sentence of both imprisonment and fine, from the date of expiry
of sentence, or payment or recovery of fine, which ever is later."

4. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the election in question now cannot be
challenged on such a ground as the statutory period as applied in the case of the petitioner
has already lapsed.

5. We do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Misc. Bench No. 6245 of 2016

Raj Kumar Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prashant Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Police Gunner on Payment - Rate Hike Upheld - Ex-MLC challenged SP Hardoi's order dated
5.2.2016 raising payment for police gunner - Held, no substantiated threat for free security; paid
deployment per G.O. dt. 9.5.2014; no cogent material to interfere. (Paras 1-2)

No Free Security Entitlement - Absence of pleaded/supported threat perception bars govt.-
expense gunner for ex-MLC. (Para 1)

No Interference in SP's Discretion- Political leader's "ornamental" gunner demand lacks merit;
writ rejected 29.3.2016. (Para 2)
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition Rejected

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
&
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

1. The petitioner is an ex-M.L.C. He has come up questioning the correctness of the
order dated 5.2.2016, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi increasing the rate of
payment to be made for providing a Police Gunner to the petitioner.

2. We do not find any element of threat perception still continuing having been
specifically pleaded supported and substantiated by any evidence so as to provide security
to the petitioner at government expenses. So far as deployment of security on payment is
concerned, the same is governed by the Government Order dated 9th May, 2014. Even
otherwise, in the absence of any cogent material to support the argument, we are not
inclined to interfere with the exercise of the power by the Superintendent of Police in a
matter relating to a political leader who wants the presence of a Gunner for ornamental
purposes.

3. The writ petition stands rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Misc. Single No.- 2692 of 2016

Firm Bal Govind Kishori Lal Thru Partner & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Additional District Judge Court No.2 Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Triloki Nath Yadav

Additional Evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Rejection Upheld- Petitioners challenged
appellate order refusing additional documents in eviction appeal under U.P. Urban Buildings Act -
Held, petitioners failed to prove due diligence, prior unavailability despite efforts, or necessity for
appellate judgment; evidence sought only to patch trial gaps, violating Order 41 Rule 27 conditions.
(Paras 1, 4, 5)

Due Diligence Requirement - Non-Compliance - Appellate court rejected late stage documents
absent proof of trial court refusal, non-existence, or diligence lapse - Held, Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa)
bars filling evidentiary lacunae; appellants cannot improve weak cases on appeal without satisfying
statutory thresholds. (Paras 5, 6)