RATTAN LAL Vs. ASHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition has been directed against order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') for deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC prior to deciding the main appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he is joint owner in possession to the extent of 1/6 share in property unit No.B-XXIII- 79/1 (80/56/P-155) situated in Industrial Area, Ludhiana and Will dated 11.07.1997 set up by defendant No.1 alleged to be executed by deceased Sohan Lal Sahnan is forged and does not confer any title in favour of respondent No.1. The trial Court returned findings in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of aforesaid Will and consequently suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The decree passed by the trial Court became subject matter of challenge in first civil appeal pending before the Court of 1 of 4 Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. In the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for adducing additional evidence in respect of information received by him from the office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana that record of Vasika No.563 dated 26.09.2006 i.e. vasika of the disputed Will is not available in its office. The petitioner filed the instant application by invoking Section 151 CPC for deciding the application for additional evidence prior to deciding the main appeal but the same was dismissed vide order impugned.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would argue that as the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence as the reports were obtained from the office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana subsequent to decision of suit by the trial Court, production of these documents is relevant and material for deciding the issue qua correctness and authenticity of Will bearing Vasika No.563 dated 26.09.2006 set up by respondent No.1 (defendant No.1 in the suit). It is further argued that in the given circumstances, the Appellate Court was required to decide the application for additional evidence even before hearing the parties on merits of the appeal. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court Harpreet Kaur and another Vs. Sawinder Kaur and others, 2018(4) PLR 549.