Regular Second Appeal No. 3133 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3133 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 26, 2009 Partap Singh ......... Appellant versus Joginder Singh .......... Respondent 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Shri H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.10.1995 was decreed by the learned First Appellate Court. The plaintiff-respondent sought specific performance of the agreement in respect of land measuring 10.1/2 Marla allegedly executed by Partap Singh through his attorney Satpal Singh. Though the plaintiff examined the attesting witness, scribe and the bank official to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but no evidence was led by the defendant. The learned trial Court granted a decree for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- as earnest money along with Regular Second Appeal No. 3133 of 2007 [2] interest @ 12% per annum against Sat Pal Singh in his individual capacity on the ground that power of attorney in favour of Sat Pal Singh by Partap Singh is not proved. In appeal, the application for additional evidence was filed so as to prove the aforesaid power of attorney. Such power of attorney was admitted in evidence as Exhibit PX. Since the power of attorney was proved before the learned First Appellate Court, decree was modified and that of specific performance of agreement to sell 10.10.1995 was granted. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that application for additional evidence should have been decided by the learned First Appellate Court along with the main appeal. Since the application for additional evidence has been taken up for final disposal before the main appeal itself was taken up for hearing, the procedure adopted by the learned First Appellate Court is not tenable. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in State of Rajasthan vs. T. Sahani, 2001(10) SCC 619; Gurnam Singh vs. Saudagar Singh and others, AIR 2005 Punjab and Haryana 267; and Municipal Committee, Ellenabad vs. Shanti Devi, 2003(1) PLR 456. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), additional evidence can be produced for a number of reasons, one of them being that such evidence is necessary to pronounce the judgment. In T. Sahani's case (supra), additional evidence was sought to be produced so as to enable the learned First Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment, whereas in the present case, evidence was sought to be led as non production of power of attorney was the sole ground to deny the relief of specific performance. Such Regular Second Appeal No. 3133 of 2007 [3] document could be admitted in evidence only prior to hearing of the argument in appeal and not along with the main appeal. It is the facts of each case which will determine whether application for additional evidence is required to be decided along with the main appeal or not. In the given case, since power of attorney was sought to be produced, the same was necessarily to be allowed before the final hearing of the appeal. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court which may give rise to any substantial question of law for determination by this Court in second appeal. August 26, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE