GURMIT KAUR Vs. GURJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Gurmit Kaur had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and in the alternative suit for joint possession. The suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2005. Appeal filed by the Plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 9.2.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the Plaintiff.

(2.) DURING the course of arguments learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that before the first Appellate Court, Plaintiff had moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code of Civil Procedure for short). However, the said application had not been decided by the trial Court. By way of additional evidence, Plaintiff wanted to prove on record the order passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jalandhar dated 28.9.1987 passed in HMA No. 5/87. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the case was not liable to be remanded back to the first Appellate Court merely because the application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure had not been decided. The evidence now sought to be led by way of additional evidence was not relevant for the just decision of the case. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Prabhu Dayal v. Hardevi, 1994 (1) PLR 398 wherein, in para 5, it was held as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has further placed reliance on Sohan Singh v. Gurmej Singh and Ors., 2002 (4) RCR (Civil) 703, wherein, in para 7, it was held as under: