MOHINDER SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, dated 10th August, 1989, remanding the case to the trial Court, after permitting the respondents to produce additional evidence in the shape of 'Sanad Taksim Arazi Matruka'. The counsel for the appellant has argued that without setting aside the findings of the trial Court, the Additional District Court Judge, could not remand the case and that the only requirement for production of additional evidence is that a chance of rebuttal is given to the other side.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the order under appeal is legally unsustainable. Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, contemplates the production of additional evidence in case the same is needed by the Court, to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. When such additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the appellate Court has to adopt one of the courses available to it within the meaning and ambit of Order 41, Rule 28 Civil Procedure Code. Either the appellate Court allows the production of additional evidence before it or requires the production of additional evidence before the trial Court and asks for report from the trial Court. In case of adoption of latter course, the appeal is kept on the file of the appellate Court. Since, there is non-compliance of Order 41, Rule 28 Civil Procedure Code, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the first appellate Court, for decision on merits. The first appellate Court, would give chance to the appellant for rebutting the additional evidence, which has been allowed under the impugned order and the said order is upheld as regards the production of additional evidence.

(3.) The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 14.1.1991.