Civil Revision No. 5144 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5144 of 2008 Date of decision: September 23, 2008 Karam Vir and Another …..PETITIONERS Versus Jaswant Singh and Others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit for specific performance filed by Jaswant Singh and Rajinder Singh-respondents on the basis of agreement to sell dated 22.8.1994, was dismissed by learned trial Court. In the appeal filed by them, the respondents filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Sections 107 and 151 C.P.C for granting them permission to adduce additional evidence by producing certified copy of the statement of savings' bank account No.899 of Sohan Singh son of Surjan Singh, brother of one of them, namely, Jaswant Singh, maintained by him in Punjab National Bank in its Jalbera Brach for the year 1995-96, to establish that on 8.6.1995, a sum of Rs.10,01,800/- was withdrawn from the same and the said amount was available with them for the purposes of performing their part of the agreement. The application was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide impugned order dated 29.8.2008, which has been challenged by two of the defendants by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As is clear from the impugned order, learned lower Civil Revision No. 5144 of 2008 -2- Appellate Court up-held two of the objections raised on behalf of the defendants that the negligence on the part of the counsel could not be allowed to be a ground for additional evidence, that too at the stage of first appeal and also that additional evidence could not be allowed just to fill in the lacunae in the case. However, keeping in view the fact that there was no chance of the document, to be produced in additional evidence being forged and the said document was not in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, learned lower Appellate Court accepted their plea for leading additional evidence. It is not disputed on behalf of the defendants/petitioners that the plaintiffs had already led evidence before learned trial Court to the effect that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement to sell dated 22.8.1994. At the appellate stage, they wanted to bring into evidence bank's statement in respect of aforementioned savings' account of brother of one of the plaintiffs to establish that an amount of Rs.10,01,800/- was withdrawn on 8.6.1995, which amount was available with the plaintiffs so as to be paid towards the remaining amount of consideration to the defendants at the time of execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that additional evidence could not be permitted at the appellate stage just to fill in the lacunae and also that it could not be claimed as a right. In this regard, he has placed reliance on N.Kamalam (dead) and Another vs Ayyasamy and Another, 2001 (2) Apex Court Journal 8 (S.C) and Civil Revision No. 5144 of 2008 -3- Youdhister vs Siri Ram and Others, 1996 (3) R.C.R (Civil) 706. There is no denial of the fact that once evidence has been led by a party, that party cannot be allowed to lead additional evidence at a later stage, especially, in an appeal, so as to fill in the lacunae or gaps in its evidence. In the present case, the plaintiffs had already brought evidence on record before the learned trial Court that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement to sell dated 22.8.1994. At that point of time, they failed to produce evidence regarding withdrawal of sufficient money from the bank account of brother of one of them, which would have established beyond doubt that such an amount was available with them. Moreover, under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C, the Court can allow any of the parties to produce additional evidence and in a given situation, even the Appellate Court, suo-motu, could require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. As the learned Appellate Court was of the view that there was no chance of forgery of the bank's statement, it rightly allowed it to be brought on record by way of additional evidence. The impugned order passed by learned lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed. September 23, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE