Civil Revision No.3524 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3524 of 2008 Date of Decision:28.04.2009 Lichhmi & Ors. ....petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.P.J.S.Sullar, AAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 28.03.2008 passed by District Judge, Jind, whereby application filed by the defendants/petitioners in the Lower Appellate Court has been allowed to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. As per the averments made in this revision petition, one Surat Singh who was in jail as an under trial had died. Petitioners filed civil suit claiming compensation of Rs.2 lacs from the defendants-respondents for causing death of Surat Singh due to gross negligence of the jail authorities. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial Court on 15.06.2007. The defendants/respondents challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing an appeal which is pending in the Court of District Judge, Jind. During the pendency of this appeal, the defendants/respondents filed an application (Annexure P-3) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for allowing them to lead additional evidence as Civil Revision No.3524 of 2008 2 mentioned in this application on the ground that the aforesaid evidence sought to be adduced, go to the roots of the case and was very much essential for just, proper and effective decision of the suit. On the other hand, the application was contested by the petitioners. The District Judge, Jind, vide order dated 28.03.2008 allowed this application filed by the defendant-respondents for leading additional evidence observing as under: “With due deference to the law laid down in these authorities cited by learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, this argument has no merit. Facts of the case in hand are entirely different from the facts of the cited authorities. As already mentioned, evidence sought to be produced is beyond manipulations. Rather, the evidence is of such nature that for proper, effective and complete adjudication of the matter in controversy, this evidence is required. In short, for pronouncing the judgment more competently and deciding the matter wholesomely, evidence is required to be brought on the file. Reference may be made to authorities reported as A.P.State Wakf Board, Hyderabad versus All India Shia Conference(Branch) A.P. & others 2002 ACJ 293 (SC) and Adil Jamshed Frenchman(deceased) by LRs versus Sardar Dastur School Trust & others 2005(2) ACJ 604(SC).” Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been passed without any valid and legal considerations and additional evidence has been permitted to be led at appellate stage against the well settled principles of law, as the evidence was already in the knowledge of the respondents and no ground for leading additional evidence as mentioned in Civil Revision No.3524 of 2008 3 Order 41 Rule 27 CPC exists, for allowing the same, as the defendant- respondents have failed to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within their knowledge or the same could not be produced by them at the earlier stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the evidence sought to be adduced is not required as the trial Court had already given a finding to the effect that under trial Surat Singh had died for want of medical cure and treatment. On the other hand, Mr.P.J.S.Sullar, AAG Haryana has supported the impugned order and has argued that evidence sought to be produced, was beyond any manipulations and was necessary for an effective and complete adjudication of the matter in controversy and therefore the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of this revision petition. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. While allowing the application for addiional evidence the court has found that the evidence sought to be produced is necessary for proper, effective and complete adjudication of the matter in controversy. Thus, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC the Court was competent to allow such evidence to be led even at the appellate stage. The question raised by the counsel for the petitioners as to whether the evidence is required or not or what is the evidentiary value of its evidence, will be gone into by the Lower Appellate Court while deciding the appeal and all such objections including the relevancy of the document which are available to the petitioners, can be raised at that stage. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.04.2009 neenu