The evidence sought to be produced should fulfill the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, and sale deeds should be proved in accordance with the provisions of law.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the application for additional evidence filed by defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction challenging certain sale deeds and power of attorneys. The defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 contested the suit and filed their written statement claiming to be lawful and bonafide purchasers vide sale deeds of 2009-10 for valuable consideration. The suit was also contested by some of the other defendants. The Trial Court inter alia found that the general power of attorneys purportedly executed by the plaintiff-petitioner were never executed and, therefore, there was no question of any person having a right to execute further sale deeds, attorneys’ or special power of attorneys’. Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2015 the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was decreed. In March 2015, the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. In January 2017, defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application before the First Appellate Court for production of additional evidence. The defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to produce as additional evidence certain jamabandies for the year 1997-98, 2002-03 and 2007-08 of Village Boot, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, certified copy of sale deed No.7289 dated 10.02.1988 executed by Kishan Chand – General Power of Attorney of Smt. Parvati in favour of Satwinder Singh son of Sadhu Singh, certified copy of sale deed No.3161 dated 25.06.1992, executed by Tirtho Devi - Special Attorney of Kishan Chand-General Attorney of Jagat Ram in favour of Rupinder Singh, certified copy of sale deed No.1156 dated 21.06.200 executed by Sushil Grover – General Attorney of Rupinder Singh in favour of Rubinder Kaur, certified copy of registered sale deed No.1158 dated 21.06.2000 executed by Sushil Grover - General Attorney of Rupinder Singh in favour of Parminder Singh, certified copy of sale deed No.7759 dated 07.03.2005 executed by Poonam Gagneja in favour of Dharminder Ahuja and Davinder Ahuja, certified copy of sale deed No.4066 dated 19.10.2005 executed by Rubinder Kaur in favour of Sangeeta Kansra, certified copy of sale deed No.4067 dated 19.10.2005 executed by Parminder Singh in favour of Sangeeta Kansra, certified copy of sale deed No.8091 dated 27.02.2008 executed by Gurcharan Dass - General Attorney of Naveen Kumar in favour of Radhe Buildtech, certified copy of sale deed No.5268 dated 06.11.2006 executed by Satwinder Singh in favour of Naveen Kumar as well as jamabandies for the year 1997-98, 2002-2003 and 2007-08. The plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a reply to the said application and contested the same. Vide impugned order dated 02.03.2017 the First Appellate Court allowed the application for additional evidence. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has contended that the First Appellate Court has erred in accepting the application for additional evidence. According to the counsel, vide the impugned order the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 were being permitted to fill in the lacunae in their case and improve their appeal, which could not be permitted in law. It is further the contention that defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 had not fulfilled the requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and, therefore, their application deserved to have been rejected. In support of his arguments, counsel has relied upon Rekha Vs. Smt. Ratnashree [2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 685], Khushi Ram & Ors. Vs. Smt. Findhi & Ors. [AIR 2003 HP 23], Kamlesh Rani Vs. Balwani Singh [2010 (62) RCR (Civil) 239 (HP)], Smt. Krishana Vs. Magha Ram & Anr. [2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 91], Kesha