IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.415 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 23, 2008 Rajinder Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS M/s Grewal Trading Company, Samana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioners for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been declined. The revision is to impugn the said order. Chanan Singh was the defendant in this suit who died on 24.8.2002. The present petitioners are his legal representatives. It is alleged that the plaintiff had forged the signatures of Chanan Singh and had filed this false civil suit. The petitioners have now filed an application revealing that they have engaged Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan, Handwriting Expert, Patiala, who after examining the disputed signatures has opined that this does not tally with the specimen signatures of late Chanan Singh. This opinion alongwith other photographic chart is intended to be produced by way of additional evidence by CIVIL REVISION NO.415 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: examining a witness. Another application was also filed under Section 107/151 CPC, seeking direction for the plaintiff to produce original Rokar containing entries dated 20.11.1996, 15.2.1997, 24.3.1997 and 6.11.1996 for perusal and inspection as well as for taking photographs by the expert. While declining the prayer of the petitioner, the appellate Court has observed that the suit was filed on 20.11.1999 and was decided on 18.8.2006. This suit was contested by the petitioners as legal representatives of late Chanan Singh since 2002. This obviously shows that they had contested the suit for over a four years after the death of Chanan Singh. The plaintiff had examined hand- writing and finger print expert in support of his case, who was cross- examined thoroughly on behalf of the defendants. The petitioners had ample opportunity not only to cross-examine the expert so produced but to lead any evidence in rebuttal when given a chance. They had voluntarily closed their evidence without examining any expert. Now this application has been filed after two years of pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to the case of Wadi Vs. Amilal and others, 2002 (2) PLJ 228 to urge that interest of justice is paramount for and invoking Order 41 Rule 27, clause (b) and it does not depend upon vigilance or negligence of parties. It has further been observed that the appellate Court is to resort to this provision when on consideration of material on record it feels that admission of additional evidence is necessary to CIVIL REVISION NO.415 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: pronounce a satisfactory judgment in the case. Learned counsel has also referred to the case of Krishan Kant alias Minu Vs. Pawan Kumar and others, 1990 (2) PLR 12 wherein in a suit for specific performance, a prayer of plaintiff to produce an expert to compare the signature on agreement to sell with the admitted signature of the defendant was allowed. The general principle incorporated in Order 41 Rule 27 sub-Rule (1) is that the parties to appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence. But if the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence, which ought to have been admitted or if the party is able to establish, it could not produce such evidence despite exercise of due diligence or such evidence was not within his knowledge, there appellate Court may allow such evidence to be produced. Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) is an other exception to the general rule contained in Rule 27(1) of Order 41 and empowers the appellate Court to allow evidence at appellate Stage if the appellate Court require any document to be produced or witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. Thus, this clause is an enabling provision for an appellate Court to allow production of evidence or documents to pronounce judgment. Therefore, this requirement or need is that of the appellate Court, interest of justice being the paramount consideration. In this context, it is observed in Wadi's case (supra) that invocation of this clause does not depend upon vigilance or negligence of the parties. It is clearly observed that this provision is CIVIL REVISION NO.415 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: not meant for them (parties) and it is for the appellate Court to resort it. The observations are to be understood in this context and not as urged by the learned counsel. It is not the case of the petitioner that the trial Court had refused to admit this evidence or that it was not within his knowledge and could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence. The petitioner has not been able to show that he is entitled to produce this evidence despite the bar created by Order 41 Rule 27 by bringing the case within the exception as carved out. The case of Krishan Kant (supra) was decided on the basis of the then existing provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC, which concededly have now been deleted. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. January 23 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE