IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA 518 of 1998. Date of decision May 8, 2009. Durgu ….Appellant. Versus Hari Ram and another ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 2 Ms. Charu Gupta, vice Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This appeal has been admitted by this Court on number of questions as formulated with this appeal. I am not considering the entire facts as I find on question No. 1, the learned appellate Court has gone astray and has ignored the mandatory provisions of law. What the appellant 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - herein intended to produce by way of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a copy of mutation proceedings. I find from the judgment that the learned District Judge besides reproducing the provisions of law has done very little to apply his mind to the facts of the case to ascertain as to whether additional evidence can / cannot be allowed. This Court in Badi Ram v. M/S R.S.Company, AIR 2002 HP 150 basing its decision on a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526 has held that the proper approach for allowing additional evidence on record is to find out as to whether the documents are required for proper determination of the controversy between the parties and in the interest of justice. Moreover, in Mehar Chand and others v. Lachhmi and others, 1994 (2) Sim. L.C.15, this Court has held that revenue records when sought to be produced in evidence should be allowed as official records and there is very little chance of there being tampering etc. - 3 - It is trite to observe that mere production of the documents without proof in accordance with law does not establish the fact alleged. What the impact of the production of evidence would be is a fact to be considered by the appellate Court which is the trial Court of fact determination and has to adjudicate on all material of law and fact before it. Considering that this appeal was filed in the year 1998 and now a period of more than 10 years has elapsed, I was reluctant to remand the case, but I find myself helpless as the approach of the appellate Court is vitiated in law. In this view of the matter, question No. 1 is decided in favour of the appellant. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The appellant herein shall be granted permission to lead additional evidence as sought. The respondents shall also be given an opportunity of producing additional evidence in rebuttal to the evidence allowed to be produced by the appellant herein. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The case is remanded to the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, who shall make - 4 - endeavour to dispose of the appeal on or before 31.12.2009. It is also directed that no undue adjournments shall be granted to the parties. Parties to appear in the court of learned District Judge, Kullu on 1.6.2009. All application(s) shall stand disposed of and interim orders vacated. May 8, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.