RAM CHANDER LAL Vs. JAMUNA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Triloki Nath, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Manu Saxena, who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) Facts, giving rise to the dispute are that predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners late Angan Lal filed a suit against Respondent No. 4 and one Har Dayal (since deceased and now represented by Respondents No. 1 to 3) for specific performance of contract, which was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.1974. Deceased Defendant Har Dayal filed first appeal before this Court which was pending. Subsequently, on account of change of pecuniary jurisdiction, the said appeal was transferred back to be decided by District Judge and registered as Appeal No. 1 of 2003. An application under Order LXI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure was moved by Petitioners to bring on record Khatauni 1382 F. to 1392 F. of village Kangawa, Khatauni 1386 F. to 1391 F. of village Barkhera and Khatauni of Khata No. 8 of village Barkhera relating to Angan Lal as additional evidence. The said documents were being sought to be brought on record on the allegation that when the suit was filed in 1972, the provisions of Section 163 to 167, U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act were different and they were drastically amended with effect from 6.3.1981 and hence the said documents were necessary to be brought on record for effective adjudication of the dispute. Court below vide order dated 9.12.2009 dismissed the application.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that documents were necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties but the court below has wrongly and illegally rejected the same. It has further been submitted that application has been rejected on erroneous consideration that since the amendments were made in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act in 1981 and there is No. justification why the said documents were not filed thereafter without considering the fact that appeal was pending before this Court and when the same was transferred in 2000 the original record was lost and was reconstructed in the year 2003 as such there was No. occasion for the Petitioners to file documents.