Civil Revision No.478 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.478 of 2007 Date of decision : 19.1.2009 Satish Kumar and others .....Petitioners Versus Mohan Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The order under challenge had been passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad, allowing the reception of additional evidence on the request of the plaintiffs-respondents. The additional evidence allowed to be produced consists of (the copies of) Jamabandis from 1981-82 to 2001-02 and also copies of Jamabandi for the period 2002 to 2006. Learned Trial Court further noticed that the request would be deemed to be restricted to the production of only four copies of Jamabandis inview of the fact that the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 had already been exhibited at the trial as Ex. P2. The defendant-petitioners are in revision against that order. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for possession by way of preemption, on a plea of their being in possession of the land sold Civil Revision No.478 of 2007 -2- **** as tenants. The documents aforementioned were not produced by them at the trial. The suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. A plea to obtain the leave of the Court to above evidence to the effect filed only before the learned Ist Appellate Court. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that the reception of additional evidence before the Ist Appellate Court would defeat the ends of justice. The plea thereby raised is that respondents-plaintiffs ought to have adduced that evidence at the trial itself. Learned counsel is not on a firmer footing when he so argues. The reception of additional evidence by the Appellate court is not a phenomenon foreign to the procedural law. The Appellate Court would be competent to grant such a request if it finds that any of the eventualites envisioned under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. have been complied with. Relating the present present plea to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., it is apparent that it is not a case where the Trial Court had refused to admit evidence and it is also not a case where the plaintiffs- respondents aver that they could not produce this evidence at the trial. The only clause which seems to be attracted is clause B which enables the appellant Court to require the production of a document which would enable it to pronounce the judgment. In the present case, the plaintiffs-respondents had raised a plea for preemption on the basis of tenancy. The documents under reference constitute a revenue record which is expected to indicate whether the plaintiffs-respondents were in possession of the land under reference as tenant or not. Learned Ist Appellate Court had correctly observed that there is no possibility of these documents having been Civil Revision No.478 of 2007 -3- **** forged. It is, thus, apparent that the production of the additional evidence would enable the Ist Appellate Court to effectively pronounce the judgment in the case. The view obtained by the learned Ist Appellate court does not merit interference. Dismissed. January 19, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE