RSA No.682 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.682 of 2008 Decided on : 14.10.2009 Jagan Nath ... Appellant versus Bhikkan Lal & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents challenging the exchange/adjustment of land carried out between the appellant and respondents on the ground that no evidence thereto was led. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the application for additional evidence has wrongly been rejected by the ld. Appellate Court as per the findings given in the impugned judgment dt. 24.08.2007? ii)Whether in view of the admission of the plaintiffs with regard to oral exchange effected between the parties long back in the year 1968, the rights of the RSA No.682 of 2008 -2- parties ought to have been determined in terms of the said oral exchange? iii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by time? iv)Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below in their judgments are totally unsustainable in the eyes of law? v)Whether the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellant were sufficient to hold him as owner and in possession of the suit land on the basis of oral exchange occurred between the parties in the year 1968? Learned counsel has only argued question No.(i). He has stated that the old record relating to the exchange/adjustment of the land, had been given to the counsel but the same was inadvertently not placed on record. Learned counsel further states that the said record clearly evidenced the case of the appellant regarding exchange and since the same was necessary to decide the controversy between the parties, the ld. Appellate Court erred in law in declining to permit the same. In my opinion, the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be held to have been exercised with any material irregularity. The Lower Appellate Court noticed that no foundation was led to show how the evidence could not be led at the time of the original trial. Once the order declining additional evidence is upheld, the RSA No.682 of 2008 -3- findings of the Courts below with regard to the non-proving of exchange/adjustment would necessarily have to be upheld. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any stand disposed of. October 14, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE