R.S.A. No. 2806 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2806 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: September 09, 2008 Zile Singh and others ..Appellants v. Ram Kanwar and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants-plaintiffs are in appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by them for declaration to the effect that they along with the respondents-defendants are joint owners in possession of the property in dispute was dismissed. As sufficient material was not produced before the trial Court to show the ownership of the land, the suit was dismissed. In appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, the appellants-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence. The same was allowed by the Court below by passing the following order: “Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in allowing the application under Order 41 R. 27 CPC except for costs. The application is accordingly allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) as costs. Now for producing addl. Evidence and for payment of costs, to come up on 27.9.2002.” It is admitted position on record that the costs, as were imposed by the learned Appellate Court, were not paid, meaning thereby that the conditional order passed permitting the appellants-plaintiffs to produce R.S.A. No. 2806 of 2003 [2] additional evidence could not be given effect to. In the absence of any material on record, even the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs before the learned Appellate Court was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that at the relevant time, they could not pay the costs as they, being poor persons, could not manage to collect so much of amount. However, such a plea cannot be accepted in appeal before this Court, as the same will not amount to a substantial question of law. Once the Court had passed the conditional order permitting the appellants-plaintiffs to lead additional evidence in case of failure to comply with the condition, the learned Court below had not committed any irregularity or illegality in dismissing the appeal of the appellants-plaintiffs, as there was no material as such on record on the basis of which the judgment and decree of the trial Court could be interfered with. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs has further failed to point out any material to show their ownership over the land. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.9.2008 mk