##PAGE1##

RSA-2698-2010 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 1 of 11

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 RSA-2698-2010(O&M)

Date of decision: 05.02.2026

Avtar Singh

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kashmir Kaur & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate

for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-8176-C-2010

This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 with Section 151

CPC for leading additional evidence in the form of Annexure A1.

By way of present application, the applicant/appellant is

seeking to bring on record the Allotment Letter dated 19.03.1965

(Annexure A1) whereby the appellant is stated to have been allotted the

suit property.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the

said letter is being sought to be placed on record by way of additional

evidence before this Court as the appellant got knowledge of this letter only

SUNENA

2026.02.06 11:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

RSA-2698-2010 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 2 of 11

(cid:1)

during pendency of the present appeal and because the said letter was not

with the applicant before the learned Courts below. It is accordingly prayed

that the present application be allowed, and letter dated 19.3.1965, be

taken on record.

The said submissions of the applicant are vehemently opposed

by learned counsel for the respondents/non-applicants who submits that

applicant cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence at this belated

stage without demonstrating due diligence. Moreover, the applicant has

failed to examine any official from the concerned Department to prove the

authenticity of the alleged Allotment Letter dated 19.03.1965. Accordingly,

dismissal of the application is prayed for.

Heard.

A perusal of the application shows that the only ground on

which the applicant is seeking to produce Annexure A1 by way of additional

evidence is in Para 2, which reads as follows: -

“2. That for the proper adjudication of the controversy involved

in the matter it is necessary to place on record copy of the

allotment letter in regard to the property in dispute issued to

the appellant, which could not be produced before the Ld. Trial

Court as Annexure A-1. This document changes the nature of

the property in dispute.”

From the above, it is clear that applicant has given no reasons

as to why the letter dated 19.3.1965 was not produced before the learned

SUNENA

2026.02.06 11:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

RSA-2698-2010 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 3 of 11

(cid:1)

Courts below. The contradictory submissions of the applicant that: a)

applicant got knowledge of the said letter only during the pendency of the

present Appeal; and b) that said later was not in his possession, constitute

no ground for producing additional evidence at this belated stage before

this Court. The above averments do not satisfy the requirement of the

provision of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, inasmuch as does not constitute ‘due

diligence’ within the meaning of Rule 27(1)(aa). The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in CA 16899 of 1996 “Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of

India” Law Finder Doc ID # 71670, has categorically held that parties to an

appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, unless they

have shown that despite due diligence, they were unable to produce

such evidence. In the present case, applicant has not shown due diligence.

Reference is also made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in C.A. No.10195 of 2013 titled as “Govt. of Karnataka and Another

Vs. K.C. Subramanya & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 495411, wherein Their

Lordships have held as follows:-

“6. On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously clear that the

party can seek liberty to produce additional evidence at the appellate

stage, but the same can be permitted only if the evidence sought to

be produced could not be produced at the stage of trial in spite of

exercise of due diligence and that the evidence could not be produced

as it w