CR No. 6160 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6160 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.4.2009 Mohinder Singh and another .. Petitioners v. Hardeep Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J. S. Brar, Advocate for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 12.11.2007, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by them for leading additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal, was dismissed. Briefly, the pleaded facts of the case are as under: “..... Jarnail Singh etc. filed a civil suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 60 kanals, 16 marlas bearing Khasra No. 929/14-8, 930/14-8, 931/16-0, 932/16-0, Khewat No. 277, Khatauni No. 650 situated in the revenue estate of village Qila Nau, Tehsil and District Faridkot. It was contended by the plaintiffs in the suit that their predecessor-in-interest namely Bala Singh purchased pre- consolidation land from Muslim evacuee vide registered sale deed dated 14 Poh. 2002 B. K. and in lieu of that the land in dispute has been allotted in consolidation proceedings. It was further stated that at the time of sale, the land was in possession of mortgagee Sardar Sant Singh s/o Sardar Amar Singh vide registered mortgage deed dated 10 Poh. 2002 B.K. For Rs. 4087/-. Bala Singh died in 1947 leaving behind his three sons Bishan Singh, Amar Singh and Santa Singh and descendants of pre-deceased son Arjan Singh and they inherited the estate of Bala Singh under the Punjab Customary Law by which the parties were then governed. The suit was contested by the present petitioners. It was categorically stated by the petitioners in their written statement that the suit land was redeemed by Balbir CR No. 6160 of 2007 [2] Singh, their father, from Sant Singh, original mortgagee about 16 years ago and since then they are in possession of the suit land with the consent of their father. It was further stated that they have become the owners of the land by way of adverse possession. The said suit filed by Jarnail Singh etc. was finally dismissed by the then Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 11.9.1986.” Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, Jarnail Singh and others filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court, which was belated. Application for condonation of delay was dismissed. The order passed therein was set aside by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1112 of 1988, decided on 4.4.2007 and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits. It was in that appeal that the petitioners (respondents in the appeal pending before the learned court below) filed application for leading additional evidence, which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the evidence, which is sought to be produced is quite material for the purpose of decision of lis between the parties, as a compromise was effected, Jarnail Singh and Surjit Singh had even sworn affidavits endorsing the same, in terms of which the appeal filed by them was to be dismissed. The submission is that as the additional evidence has the effect of finally determining the rights of the parties, the same being material, the petitioners should have been permitted to adduce the same before the learned lower appellate court. The same could not be produced before the court below for the reason that compromise was effected during the pendency of the revision before this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no compromise between the parties. Even otherwise, if the claim set up by the petitioners is accepted, it only contains signatures of Jarnail Singh on the compromise and affidavits of two of the plaintiffs and not all of them. If the compromise had been effected during the pendency of the revision before this Court, the same could be placed before this court only before the Civil Revision was decided. The learned court below had rightly rejected the application being misconceived. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Considering the material on record, in my opinion, the learned court below has not committed any illegality while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for leading additional evidence in the pending appeal. While dismissing the application, it was noticed that there were 16 plaintiffs before the CR No. 6160 of 2007 [3] trial court and the suit having been dismissed, they filed appeal, which was pending. It was further noticed that the alleged compromise was executed only by Jarnail Singh and the affidavits sought to be produced by the petitioners are also of Jarnail Singh and Surjit Singh. Even if the documents are considered to be genuine, though a perusal thereof certainly causes suspicion about their genuineness, all the appellants before the court below had not compromised. They had neither signed the compromise nor any affidavit was sworn by them and in such circumstances, even if the petitioners were permitted to lead additional evidence, the same was totally a futile exercise as one of the plaintiffs could not possibly compromise the suit and withdraw the appeal on behalf of all the appellants. Even otherwise, in my opinion, admittedly the Civil Revision, filed by the persons whose signed affidavits and compromise are sought to be produced in additional evidence, was decided by this Court on 4.4.2007. The documents, which are sought to be produced in additional evidence in the form of compromises are dated 10.6.1989, 26.6.1989 and 21.7.1989. If these documents had come into existence after the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 11.9.1986, these could very well be produced before this court at the time of hearing of the Civil Revision or even prior thereto immediately after the dispute was allegedly compromised and subsequently there was no reason for the persons, who had compromised the suit, to have pressed the petition before this Court. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 23.4.2009 mk