R.S.A. No. 3154 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3154 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.03.2009 Sajjan Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Bhag Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 9358-C of 2008 This application under Section 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved for leading additional evidence to place on record site plans Ex. A-1 to A-4. The plaintiffs/appellant brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/appellants over the disputed property claiming themselves to be owners under the sale deed. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff/appellants failed to connect the property in dispute with the sale deed executed in their favour. By way of additional evidence, the plaintiff/appellants now R.S.A. No. 3154 of 2008 (O&M) -2- wish to place on record the site plans Ex. A-1 to A-4 to connect the property with the sale deed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence i.e. site plans are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellants. The site plans now sought to be produced are prepared at the instance of the appellant/plaintiffs and are not the documents, which would be per se admissible. It is settled law that no evidence can be produced by way of additional evidence, which amounts to filling up of lacuna in the case. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff/appellants have failed to connect the property purchased by them with the property in dispute, and denied relief of permanent injunction. The evidence cannot be said to be such which was not within the knowledge of the appellants when the case was pending before the learned Courts below, or is necessary to be brought on record to pronounce judgment. No ground is, thus, made out for leading additional evidence. Application is accordingly dismissed. R.S.A. No. 3154 of 2008 The plaintiff/appellants brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/appellants on the plea that the property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff/appellants from the person, who R.S.A. No. 3154 of 2008 (O&M) -3- was owner in posssession of the suit property at the time of sale. Possession was delivered to plaintiff No. 1 and Sucha Singh, father of plaintiff No. 2 at the time of sale. The plaintiffs claimed to be in the possession of the suit property, under the sale deed. The suit was contested wherein possession of the plaintiffs was denied. The learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to connect the property with the sale deed under which they were said to have come in possession and, therefore, declined the relief of injunction. The finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record, which cannot be a subject matter of challenge in regular second appeal. The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 05, 2009 R.S.