Civil Revision No.1016 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1016 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 27, 2008 Harbans Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Surender Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal is declined. The petitioner has accordingly filed this revision petition impugning the said order passed by Addl.District Judge, Kurukshetra. The dispute relates to allotment of a plot to petitioner Harbans Singh through an Civil Revision No.1016 of 2008 : 2 : allotment dated 14.9.1949 and Sanad issued on 15.11.1955. The petitioner produced a photo copy, attested by Notary Public, of the allotment order and Sanad before the trial Court. This document was not read into evidence in the absence of original allotment letter and Sanad. The photo copies of the documents were placed on record on the ground that the original thereof had been got misplaced. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the decision of the trial Court and has now moved an application seeking permission for leading additional evidence by pleading that original allotment letter and Sanad has now been obtained and wants to produce the same by way of an additional evidence. It may need a notice that the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the petitioner by observing that neither the area of the plot, allegedly allotted to him, was proved nor allotment and Sanad in original were placed on record. It is further noticed that the respondent had objected to the tendering of these documents before the trial Court, still the petitioner did not make any effort to obtain the original thereof and, thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not produce these documents despite due diligence. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Appellate Court has ample power to allow additional evidence. The Court has observed that it is not clear from the application whether the original of the allotment letter and Sanad were misplaced or these have been again obtained. It is, thus, noticed that there are no sufficient reasons forthcoming on record as to why the original or its certified copy was not produced during the Civil Revision No.1016 of 2008 : 3 : trial. Noticing that excerpts from revenue records can only be produced by summoning a Special Kanungo and that permitting of examination of a witness at appellate stage would prejudice the opposite party, the Court has held that it is not a fit case to allow the prayer. The documents, now sought to be produced as an additional evidence, were within the knowledge of the petitioner. It cannot, thus, be said that the petitioner could not produce this evidence despite due diligence. As noticed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner has not disclosed any reason for which he could not produce the original of these documents. In this context, it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which lays down that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the Appellate Court. To this general rule, exception appears to have been carved out to say that additional evidence can, however, be permitted if the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. Similarly, if the party adducing evidence is able to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced, the additional evidence may be permitted at the appellate stage. The additional evidence can also be permitted where the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. Civil Revision No.1016 of 2008 : 4 : The case of the petitioner apparently is not covered by any of the above stated apparent exceptions, which are to the general principle of not allowing additional evidence at the appellate stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Sardar Dastur School Trust and others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 996. The additional evidence, in this case, was allowed on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by the tenant were material and if substantiated, would have had a material effect on the plea of bona fide need. That obvious would be permissible in terms of the discretion to be exercised by the Court as contained in Order 41 Rule 27, which is not the submission in the present case. The counsel has also referred to Durga Bhagwati Industries, Hathras and ors. Vs. Om Prakash Lohia and ors., 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 193. In this case, the Court has observed that the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the documents were in existence prior to the filing of the appeal, but were not filed before the Court. This proposition would not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner. The petitioner is seeking permission to produce the original of a document by way of additional evidence, copies of which had earlier been produced. This had been found to be a case of filling up the lacuna at the appellate stage. Other considerations like requirement of the evidence for proper adjudication or lack of due diligence in producing the evidence are really not attracted in the instant case. Similarly the ratio of law laid down in Chapala Chinnabbayi and Civil Revision No.1016 of 2008 : 5 : ors. Vs. Naralasetti Anusuyama and ors. 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 526 would not come to the rescue of the petitioner as this talks of general principle where the High Court may permit a party to adduce additional evidence during second appeal. Rather it has been observed in this case that the parties to the proceedings were not entitled to adduce additional evidence and in exceptional and compelling circumstances, the High Court may take the aid of Order 42 CPC and permit adducing of additional evidence in the second appeal in the interest of justice. Apparently, the petitioner has not pleaded or urged any exceptional or compelling circumstances which could prompt the court to direct admitting of additional evidence at the appellate stage. In this view of the matter, I do not find any legal or valid reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court and would dismiss the present revision petition being without merits. February 27, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE