An application for additional evidence must be disposed of, if not prior, simultaneously with the pronouncement of the final judgment in the case.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.1995, however, on appeal, they partially succeeded before the learned First Appellate Court and still being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 26th July, 1997, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants.

2. A suit for specific performance was filed by Charan Singh against Jagtar Singh and others claiming specific performance of the agreement dated 25.10.1983 for sale of the land measuring 19 bighas 8 biswas as detailed in the plaint for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,35,800/-. Out of which Rs. 30,000/was paid and balance was to be paid subsequently. This suit for specific performance was contested by dependent No. 2 and 3 more particularly, who took up various preliminary objections in regard to maintainability of the suit misjoinder of necessary parties and on the alleged facts that the entire suit was false, frivolous and vague and the same was liable to be dismissed. The defendants had taken up the plea that the agreement did not effect their rights in any way whatsoever and specific plea was taken that the judgment and decree passed earlier by the Courts of having competent jurisdiction was neither collusive nor was a result of fraud, as such, they contested the suit. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues-

(i) Whether the Jagtar Singh defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff? OPP

(ii) Whether if issue No. l is proved the plaintiffs had been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract?

(iii) Whether the defendants Nos.4 and 5 are bona fide purchaser? If so, its effect? OPD

(iv) Whether the plaint has not been verified according to the provisions of CPC? If so its effect? OPD

(v) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (v-A) Whether the property in dispute is ancestral in the hands of the defendant No. l? OPD

(v-B) Whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 have become the owners of property in dispute? OPD

(v-C) Relief."

3. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.2.1995 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, first appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana. The appeal was partly accepted vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.1997 and an order/decree for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- with proportionate cost with 6% interest was passed in favour of the appellant. Still being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned 1st Appellate Court the present appeal has been filed. It is to be noticed at the very out set that the appeal was barred by time and by order dated 11.11.1998 the delay in filing the appeal of 205 days was condoned and the appellant was permitted to pay the Court fee afresh as the brief of the counsel was stated to have been lost in the Registry of this Court. Though, according to the Registry the brief had been taken by the Clerk of the Counsel. However, the said order has become final between the parties. As such, I do not find need to discuss this question any further.

4. The basic controversy raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that during the pendency of the appeal an application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. It was stated that by means of that application that the applicants plaintiff was entitled to produce and prove on record the jamabandis for the year 1987-88, 1988-89 and also the ak shijra for the year 1992-93 and further the experts evidence to prove the pleas taken by the plaintiff. The application was pending before the learned 1st Appellate Court and appears to have been filed somewhere on 12.3.1997. The learned 1st Appellate Court passed the judgment on 26.7.1997 and no specifi