Civil Revision No. 1944 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1944 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 31, 2010 Ramesh Kumar ...... Petitioner Versus Krishan Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order allowing an application for additional evidence in appeal. Learned counsel has argued that documents now sought to be produced by the respondent-plaintiffs (appellants before the learned Lower Appellate Court) were such which were or should have been well within their knowledge being Jamabandies, mutations and pedigree table. Further argued that the learned trial Court dismissed the suit precisely on the ground that these documents were not placed on the record. I find that the learned Lower Appellate court has considered this argument and after placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. I.N.Sahani reported as 2001(1) PLJ 524-where their Civil Revision No. 1944 of 2010(O&M) 2 Lordships reiterated the view taken in K.Venkataramiash v. Seetharama Reddy reported as AIR 1963 SC 1526- has come to the conclusion that in the present case it would be in the interest of justice if these documents are taken on record the same would enable the Court to determine the real controversy between the parties. In my considered opinion the order cannot be said to be initiated by any such material irregularity as would render it liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Faced with this learned counsel has argued that an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioners also to lead any additional evidence because there may not have led all the evidence in their power keeping in mind the omission of the respondents to lead necessary evidence in the trial Court. I find this to be a reasonable request and consequently grant them liberty to move an application for additional evidence before the learned Lower Appellate Court who, I am sure, would consider the same on its own merits and would take a decision thereon keeping in mind the fact that the respondents have been allowed to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage. With these observations this petition is disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 31, 2010 sunita