The court has inherent power to allow additional evidence if it is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case and for pronouncement of judgment.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 5.4.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Gurgaon whereby the learned court below partly accepted the application for additional evidence filed by the petitioner and declined the prayer of the petitioner to produce adoption deed by way of additional evidence.

2. The petitioner filed two suits – one to challenge the Will dated 5.5.1993 and the decree passed in civil suit titled “Shanti Devi Vs. Girvar” and the second to challenge the decree dated 29.8.1992 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon in the case of 'Shanti Vs. Girwar'. Both the suits stand consolidated in pursuance to the order dated 4.2.2003 and the proceedings are being recorded in Civil Suit No.62 of 1994. The petitioner claims that adoption deed was executed by Girvar Singh adopting the petitioner as his adopted son.

3. After the parties had led evidence the petitioner moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence. The petitioner by way of additional evidence wanted to produce Mutations No.731 dated 25.5.1908, No.296 dated 26.7.1945, No. 1062 dated 9.4.1946 and Pedigree table of the year 1877. It was claimed that mutations are per se admissible as also the Pedigree table as the documents to be produced were the certified copies issued by the revenue authorities and are better documents. The petitioner also sought to produce original adoption deed duly registered which was produced by the petitioner in another case titled 'Ravinder Vs. Ms.Anita Kohli and others' and the certified copy whereof has been placed in the said case.

4. The application moved by the petitioner was contested.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon by way of impugned order partly allowed the application moved by the petitioner by way of additional evidence but declined the prayer for production of adoption deed.

5. It is the case of he petitioner that after the closure of the evidence by the defendants the plaintiff has summoned the evidence in rebuttal but an application was moved by the respondent-defendants that the evidence sought to be led by the petitioner by way of rebuttal evidence was in affirmative and therefore, was not permissible by way of rebuttal evidence. The defendants gave up the issues burden of which was on the defendant-respondents to prove the said issues and in view of this the application moved by the defendant-respondents was accepted and the petitioner was not allowed to lead additional evidence. It was thereafter the present application was moved.

6. Though the application moved by the petitioner was for leading additional evidence, learned trial court rejected the claim of the petitioner by observing that as the onus of material issues was upon the plaintiff petitioner and he was supposed to lead evidence on these issues in affirmative therefore, he could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal which is in the nature of affirmative evidence. Learned court also came to the conclusion that no case was made out in the application showing that any evidence was led by the defendants which could force the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. Learned trial court further observed that mere tendering of certified copy of adoption deed was not sufficient to prove the factum of adoption as formal evidence is required to prove the said document.

7. As regard the prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence to prove adoption deed was declined by observing that when a particular and specific issue was framed with regard to the adoption the petitioner was required to lead evidence in affirmative. The court also observed that it cannot be said that adoption deed was not in his knowledge. Learned trial court thus, rejected the plea of the petitioner for leading additional evidence to prove the adoption deed.

8. Learned trial court, however, allowed the application with regard to the