IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.4499 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 Gurwinder Singh and another … Appellants Versus Hakmi Devi and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.K. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the appellants has stated that the lower appellate Court has not decided the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in consonance with the provisions of law. Counsel, referring to the order passed on 5th October, 2009, has assailed the approach adopted by the lower appellate Court and has stated that no opportunity was granted to the appellants-plaintiffs to prove the gift-deed or the revenue record which were registered documents. Learned counsel has further stated that in para No.2 of the application, it was specifically stated that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit property as well as the ownership of predecessor in interest, therefore, by way of additional evidence they intended to prove the registered documents in their favour from which their ownership could be inferred. The lower appellate Court disposed of the application by observing as under: Regular Second Appeal No.4499 of 2009 (O&M) “… … … As such, the application in question is disposed of with the ruling that this Court would be at liberty to take into consideration any document, out of the documentary evidence now sought to be led by the applicants-appellants-plaintiffs, if the judicial notice thereof could be taken as same was found to be relevant and necessary for the proper and just adjudication of the case. Now case to come on 8.10.2009 for arguments. Sd/- ADJ, PKL/5.10.2009” Counsel for the appellants has inter-alia stated that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court: “Whether the lower appellate Court acted in consonance with the provisions of law to decide the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence.” Requires consideration. Admitted. Before this Court could pass an interim order in favour of the appellants, counsel for the respondents has stated that in case the appellants-plaintiffs file a fresh suit for declaration claiming ownership of the property on the basis of gift-deed, it will be in the interest of all. Counsel for the appellants has no objection thereto. In view of the broad consensus arrived at between the parties, present appeal is hereby disposed of. The appellants-plaintiffs, if so advised, may file a suit for declaration that they are owners of the 2 Regular Second Appeal No.4499 of 2009 (O&M) property. They may also seek consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit so instituted shall be decided de-hors the findings returned in the judgments under appeal. Counsel for the parties also pray that in case the suit is filed within two months from today, the same be decided within a period of two years. Ordered accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 19, 2011 rps 3