RSA No.2526 of 1998 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.2526 of 1998 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 27.09.2010 **** Gurnam Singh and another . . . . Appellants Vs. Nand Singh (dead) and others. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondents No.10 & 11. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction has been dismissed. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1, who could not have sold it without legal necessity. After the closure of evidence before the trial Court, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to lead additional evidence. The said application was declined, however, revision petition filed against that order was accepted by this Court on 12.5.1993 and the plaintiffs were directed to lead entire additional evidence at their own responsibility on 27.5.1993. Pursuant to that opportunity, plaintiffs could only produce on record Ex.PX (letter of the ‘Kanungo’) and closed their evidence without producing the ‘except’ to prove the nature of the property in dispute. In First Appeal again they filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC in order to lead additional evidence. The said application was dismissed along with the appeal on the ground that there is no justification for granting another opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence. Before this Court, again the plaintiffs have filed Civil Misc.No.750-C-1999 for placing on record certain documents which was allowed on 15.2.1999 RSA No.2526 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - and documents filed along with the application were taken on record. Ironically, the ‘excerpt’ has still not been produced rather some jamabandies etc. have been produced on record from which the plaintiffs are unable to prove that the property was ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1 who had no right to sell the property in dispute. No other point is involved in this appeal except for that the property is ancestral and could not have been sold. No other point has been raised. In view thereof, I do not find any question of law much less substantial involved, as envisaged under Section 100 of the CPC for this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 JUDGE Vivek