IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : February 18, 2026 Surender and others .. Appellants Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-869-LPA-2026 Present application has been filed for allowing the appellants to lead additional evidence by placing on record copy of Khasra Girdawaris for the year 2004 to 2023 as Annexures A-1 to A-5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004 as Annexure A-6, copy of mutation as Annexure A-7 and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 as Annexure A-8.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

It may be noticed that the authorities passed an order qua partition proceedings a decade ago, which order was challenged and the learned Single Judge keeping in view the documents brought on record, dismissed the writ petition filed by the applicant-appellants vide order dated 31.01.2025. Thereafter, a liberty was taken from the LPA Bench to file a review application, which review application was dismissed on 18.11.2025 by recording that no Jamabandi or Khasra Girdawari has been produced to indicate that the applicant-appellants are in possession of any exclusive property owned by them.

The provisions envisaged under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with regard to the production of additional evidence before the Appellate Court stipulate that additional evidence can only be allowed to be produced in case it is established that the party seeking to produce the same did not have knowledge about such documents despite exercising of due diligence.

In the present case, learned counsel for the applicant-appellants was asked as to whether the documents sought to be placed on record at this stage were to their knowledge or not, learned counsel for the applicant- appellants concedes that the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaris were to their knowledge.

Once, any document was in knowledge of the applicant-appellants but was still not produced, the requisities of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC are not met with.

Keeping in view the above, the present application for placing on record the additional evidence is rejected.

LPA-322-2026

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.2620 of 2025 by which, the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the partition proceeding was dismissed as well as the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in RA- CW-511 of 2025 by which, review application filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argues that the appellants were in exclusive possession of certain property, which should have been given to them while partitioning the land in question keeping in view the mode of partition reached upon but, the said land was not given to them keeping in view their possession which is causing prejudice to appellants, and which aspect has not been appreciated by the revenue authorities concerned partitioning the land as well as by the learned Single Judge while passing the orders dated 31.01.2025 and 18.11.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were in exclusive possession of certain portion of the land of which they were co-sharers and they were entitled for the partition of the same in their favour as per the mode of partition which has not been adhered to, which fact has been ignored by the authorities while partitioning the land as well as by the learned Single Judge while passing the order dismissing the writ petition as well as review application.

4. It may be noticed that while passing an order dated 31.01.2025 in the writ petition filed by appellants, conclusive findings were recorded by the learned Single Judge that no record has been b