RFA No. 1845 of 1987

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RFA No. 1845 of 1987 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 13.10.2009

Ram Kishan

..Appellant

Vs.

Gobind Ram & Ors.

..Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma

Present:

Mr.R.S.Mittal, Sr.Advocate,

with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,

for respondents No.2 to 4.

---

1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

Digest?

---

RFA No. 1845 of 1987

2

Vinod K.Sharma,J.

CM No.10202-CII of 2009

This is an application moved under section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure for disposing of Civil Misc. application No.6829 of 2003

filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (For short the

Code).

The applicant-respondents had moved an application i.e. Civil

Misc. No.6828 of 2003 for vacation of stay order for non-compliance of the

order passed by this court.

Another application was moved for additional evidence under

Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code for placing on record

additional evidence i.e. Annexure P.22.

Application for modification of stay was dismissed by this

court. While disposing of the application, application moved for additional

evidence was also disposed of without deciding it on merit. Therefore,

prayer has been made for deciding the application No.6829 of 2003 on merit

in accordance with law.

Notice of the application was given.

Application has been opposed primarily on the ground that the

provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code cannot be invoked to bring

additional evidence on record except on the ground mentioned therein. On

the other hand, a prayer has been made that Annexure R.1 be taken on

record as that would be necessary for proper adjudication of the case. It is,

however, not disputed that the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of

RFA No. 1845 of 1987

3

the Code was not disposed of on merit.

This application is accordingly allowed.

CM No.6829-CI of 2003

This is an application moved by the respondent/applicants

under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code for leading

additional evidence by producing Annexure “A” i.e. copy of Khasra

Paimaish on the plea that the document Annexure A is necessary for

pronouncement of judgment in the present case.

It is averred that Annexure A is a certified copy of field Book

No.1885 which is a public document and genuineness of which cannot be

doubted.

Application is opposed on the plea that the evidence now

sought to be brought on record was available with the applicant before the

learned trial court and therefore, cannot be permitted to beled under the

provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, as no additional evidence can

be allowed, except on the ground set out under the provisions of order 41

Rule 27 of the Code. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgments of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of

Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 1008, and

Mahavir Singh & Ors. Vs. Naresh Chandra & Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 309.

In The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lala

Pancham and Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to

lay down as under:-

“

Under O.41, Rule 27 the appellate Court has the power to

RFA No. 1845 of 1987

4

allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined.

Btu the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those

cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for

enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not

entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the

appellate stage where even without such evidence it can

pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate

Court to let in fresh evidence only for the