IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Misc. No. 11496-C of 2007 RSA No. 4060 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.1.2008 Harbhajan Singh … Appellant Versus Harjit Singh … Respondent ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal at the instance of the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2007 of the first appellate court whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2007 passed by the trial court was affirmed and the defendant’s first appeal dismissed. The plaintiff-Harjit Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present appellant, claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit land measuring 60 Kanals, situated in the revenue estate of village Dhaliwal Bet, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, having purchased the same from the Government of Punjab vide sale certificate dated 28.11.2002. It was averred that the defendant had no concern with the suit land who, however, being in cultivating possession of the Shamlat land, near the suit land, was trying to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. The defendant’s stand in the written statement was that the plaintiff had concealed material facts from the court. It was stated that the defendant RSA No. 4060 of 2007 was owner in possession of 30 Kanals of land out of the suit land wherein he had installed a tube-well. Clarifying further, it was stated that the suit land had been purchased in the name of the plaintiff in public auction in January, 1986 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and half of the sale consideration (Rs. 10,000/- as 50% of auction money and Rs. 30,000/- as 50% of the remaining amount of sale consideration) of the said land was paid by the defendant. After payment of the sale consideration, a sale certificate was issued in the name of the plaintiff in the month of November 2002. Various issues were framed by the trial court and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that the defendant had failed to prove on record that he was co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of ½ share and was thus in possession thereof on the southern side as alleged in the written statement. The trial court also held that the plaintiff had been able to prove that he was in possession of the suit land as exclusive owner thereof and, therefore, the defendant had no right to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Further the trial court also held that the plea of the defendant that half share in the suit land was purchased by him Benami in the name of the plaintiff was not sustainable in view of the bar imposed by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. On appeal, the first appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal after due re-appreciation of the evidence on record vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had moved an application dated 23.5.2007, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record a copy of Khasra 2 RSA No. 4060 of 2007 Girdawri from Sauni 1994 – Harri 1998-1999 by way of additional evidence, which according to him could not be placed on record inadvertently and due to an over-sight, at the time of leading the evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant filed another application dated 7.8.2007, under the same provisions, for placing on record a daily diary report No.8 of 2007 by way of additional evidence, which however, was dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, therefore, is that the learned first appellate court where the aforesaid two applications had been filed, did not pass any order on the application dated 23.5.2007. Moreover, the first appellate court even did not pass any separate order on the second application dated 7.8.2007 and simply dismissed the same while deciding the main appeal on 4.10.2007. The grouse of the learned counsel for the appellant in the context that the manner in which appellant’s aforesaid two applications have been dealt with, as noticed above, was against the provisions of law and consequently, the appellant’s cause was seriously prejudiced as he was refrained from availing the remedies that were available to him in law. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. It deserves to be noticed that in this Court also, the appellant has filed an application (Civil Misc. No. 11496-C of 2007) under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission of the Court to place those very documents on record, namely, DDR No. 8 of 2007 and copy of Khasra Girdawri from Sauni 1994 to Harri 1998-1999 by way of additional evidence which he wanted to produce through aforesaid applications dated 23.5.2007 and 7.8.2007. The appellant has averred that the documents sought to be placed on record by means of additional evidence are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. It was also averred that the documents in 3 RSA No. 4060 of 2007 question being public documents, there could not have been any reason to doubt the authenticity of the same. A perusal of averments made in the application further shows that no legal and cogent reason whatsoever has been mentioned by the appellant. All that is stated in the context is that the documents could not be produced earlier due to inadvertence and due to an over-sight. Such a ground, in the opinion of this Court, does not fall within the parameters of the provisions of law permitting the production of additional evidence. There is no averment that the documents in question were not in existence at the time when the appellant was leading evidence or that the documents could not be produced despite due diligence and making serious efforts in that context when the appellant was leading evidence. In so far as the document sought to be produced by way of additional evidence pursuant to latter application dated 7.8.2007 is concerned, the appellant could not have any grievance as his prayer in that behalf was duly considered by the first appellate court, though of course at the time of deciding the appeal, and was rejected as mentioned in para 10 of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court. In so far as the appellant’s grouse in regard to not deciding his earlier application dated 23.5.2007 is concerned, the same has been considered by this Court now. No justifiable reason can be found in the prayer of the appellant for placing the aforesaid two documents by way of additional evidence. The Civil Misc. application is consequently dismissed. Though the counsel strenuously argued in favour of invalidation of the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below, but she was not able to show any error of law or perversity in the said findings warranting interference by this Court in second appeal, because the revenue records in the form of jamabandi and Khasra girdawari wherein the plaintiff- respondent has been shown as owner in possession, have evidentiary value 4 RSA No. 4060 of 2007 and on their basis the appellant can be termed as a stranger to the suit land. When the suit land stands mutated in the name of the plaintiff- respondent on the basis of validly issued sale certificate dated 28.11.2002, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed by the courts below. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) January 28, 2008 JUDGE *MALIK* 5