VED PAL AND ORS. Vs. TEK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge Kaithal whereby an application moved by the Plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the First appellate Court had erred in allowing the application for additional evidence. The document now sought to be produced on record had no relevance to the controversy in question.

(3.) PLAINTIFF had filed a suit for declaration and joint possession challenging decree dated 30.10.1981. The suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Plaintiff preferred an appeal along with an application for producing birth certificate of Ved Pal -Defendant No. 1 by way of additional evidence. The First appellate Court allowed the application for additional evidence and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the case back to the trial Court for a fresh decision vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.2009. Aggrieved by the same, Defendant preferred SAO No. 41/2009. The said appeal was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. It was held that the First Appellate Court could either itself record the additional evidence or could ask the trial Court to record the additional evidence and send a report to the Appellate Court. However, the case could not be remanded back to the trial Court. Now vide the impugned order, the First Appellate Court has allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has directed the trial Court to record the additional evidence and then sent a report to the First Appellate Court.