Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Suresh and another ..... Petitioner Versus Mukesh Kumar ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri V.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 3.9.2010 passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendant in his appeal, has been permitted to produce by way of additional evidence the judgment of the Civil Court, posting orders of the scribe of the Will and ration card. The learned first Appellate Court has found that such documents will help the Court to pronounce the judgment and the veracity of such documents can be verified and thus permitted the defendant to produce such documents in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that by virtue of additional evidence sought to be produced at the Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Appellate stage, the defendant wishes to fill up the lacunae in evidence and that such evidence was in the knowledge of the defendant, therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to lead such evidence at the appellate stage. It is also argued that the first Appellate Court should have decided the application for additional evidence while hearing the appeal and not anterior in time so as to return a finding that the documents are required by the Court to pronounce the judgment. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents sought to be produced include the judgment, certified copy whereof is per-se admissible in evidence; the posting orders of the scribe of the Will and the ration card, to determine the genuineness of the Will. The said posting orders and the ration card, are issued by the State Government and therefore, the authenticity of such documents cannot be doubted. May be the defendant was not vigilant enough to lead such evidence during the course of leading his evidence, but the first Appellate Court has returned a finding that such documents will help the Court to pronounce the judgment. The fact that veracity of these documents can be proved from the Government record, therefore, such documents, which are necessary for the proper decision of the case, cannot be kept out of evidence only for the reason that the defendant has not produced such documents in evidence during the course of trial. Any evidence, which is relevant and would help the Court in deciding the controversy raised in the suit, can be permitted to be led in evidence. It is the facts of each case, which are required to be examined by the Court to return a finding as to whether such evidence is just and necessary for the purpose of proper decision of the case. This Court will not reverse the Civil Revision No. 6122 of 2010 (O&M) [3] view taken by the learned first Appellate Court while passing the impugned order only for the reason that a different view might be possible. Another argument raised by the learned counsel that the application for additional evidence should have been decided along with the hearing of the appeal, is again not tenable. The first Appellate Court has examined the entire facts to return a finding that the documents are necessary for the proper decision of the case. Once, the first Appellate Court allowed the application for additional evidence in the facts of the case, it is wholly untenable to say that the application should have been decided along with the main appeal. While allowing the application for additional evidence, it is not possible to decide the main appeal itself. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the first Appellate Court, which may warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22.9.2010 ds