SAMPATIYA BAI Vs. MOOLCHAND S/O SAKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken­up through video conferencing.

(2.) This appellants'/defendants' second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law: ­ "Whether the first appellate Court committed illegality in taking the additional evidence on record by granting plaintiff's application under Order 41 rule 27 of the CPC and exhibiting the document as Ex.P/2 and thereafter, relying upon the said document as evidence, partly allowing the appeal without giving an opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence in rebuttal of Ex.P/2?"

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was dismissed on merits by the trial Court, which was appealed by the plaintiff before the first appellate Court, in which the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC making a prayer for taking additional document on record i.e. copy of adhikar abhilekh with regard to the suit land bearing Khasra No.143 area 0.74 acre. The first appellate Court after hearing the appeal on merits during the course of the judgment allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and exhibited that document as Ex.P/2 and relying upon the said document as evidence, allowed the appeal granting decree in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit land bearing Khasra No.143 area 0.74 acre, against which, this second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, in which substantial question of law has been formulated which has been set­out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.