The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in allowing or dismissing applications for additional evidence, based on the relevance and assistance of the evidence to the case.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

CM APPL. 12414/2022 (Addl. evidence)

1. Application under Order XL Rule 27 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC, 1908') filed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff for leading additional evidence. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition, declaration, mesne profits, mandatory & permanent injunction against the respondents in respect of the properties mentioned in the suit. The appellant in his petition had taken a plea that he had paid 80.55% of the sale consideration and is entitled to a share to the said extent in the suit property. Moreover, there was an oral agreement by virtue of which respondent No.1 had agreed to execute a Relinquishment Deed in his favour making him an absolute owner of the suit property.

2. To support his assertions that he had paid approximately 80.55% the appellant wants to place the following documents on record:

(i) Loan Account Statement which reflects that on 9.7.2010 appellant and respondents No.1, 4 and 5 took a loan against property No.B-121, 12th Floor, DLF City, Regency Park, Phase-IV, Gurgaon for Rs.43,15,807/-.

3. On 05th May, 2015, out of the sale of joint property in Regency Park, Gurgaon, a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- was received in equal amount of Rs.57,50,000/- by appellant and respondent No.2. While respondent No.1 deposited his share in a personal bank account, the appellant out of this amount had deposited Rs.46,00,000/- in joint bank account from which partial payments have been made towards sale consideration for the basement property and had deposited only Rs.10,00,000/- in his personal account.

4. It is further stated that EMIs for the aforesaid loan were paid from the joint account of appellant and respondent No.1 which account received credited balance only from rental income in the name of appellant and on 07.04.2015 payment of Rs.13,36,264/- was made from the personal bank account of the appellant to the joint account.

(i) Copy of the passbook of personal bank account of appellant in Canara Bank which shows that Rs.13,36,264/- was transferred from this account on 8.4.2015 towards the repayment of loan.

(ii) Joint Bank Account Statement of Oriental Bank of Commerce in which appellant and respondent No.1 have a joint account. The payments towards EMIs of the loan taken by respondent No.1 were made from this account. It is again claimed that most of the amounts were credited in this account from the appellant's share in rental income received from the joint properties. Further, on 17.08.2010 an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was transferred to Jaypee & Co. (Father in law of respondent No.1) and on 15.09.2011 an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was credited from Jaypee & Co. in the joint account which was also used for repayment of the aforesaid loan. On 17th September, 2011, a payment of Rs.48,00,000/- was made through this joint account towards part sale consideration.

(iii) The Sale Deed of property bearing No.B-121, 12th Floor, DLF City, Regency Park Phase-IV, Gurgaon.

(iv) Account Statement of Dr. Suraj Munjal for the month of October, 2011 to show that Rs.48,49,000/- were paid by Dr. Suraj Munjal on 08.10.2011 towards sale consideration of the suit property.

5. It is submitted that these documents are relevant and need to be proved in a trial to corroborate the assertions of the appellant in regard to his share in the property to be 80.55%.

6. The appellant intended to place these documents on record merely to show that the amounts being credited in the joint account were largely by the appellant from the rental income or from the sale of property or other sources which amounted to 80.55%, while the amount being deposited by respondent No.1 was only to the extent of 19.45%. The assertions made by the appellant in regard to his contribution made in the joint account or the EMI's having been paid by him from his resources as reflected in the documents which is sought