BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA Vs. ANSHU AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants (Petitioners herein) assail the correctness of the order passed by the first appellate court dtd. 2/11/2019 while permitting the plaintiffs (respondents herein) to lead additional evidence during the pendency of 1st appeal. Some facts are required to be noted.

(2.) The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for declaration that the judgment and decree dtd. 20/12/2008 passed in Civil Suit No.397 of 2008, has been obtained by the defendants fraudulently and it does not affect their proprietary rights. They claim that the property in question is ancestral as well as coparcenary property and hence, they have acquired a vested right since the time of their birth. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds.

(3.) The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 8/9/2015. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, they filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence on the ground that when they previously searched for the old revenue record relating to the said property, they could not trace the same despite due diligence on their part as the record was found missing. Now the record has been traced out which proves that the property is coming from Jai Ram Dass who was predecessor-in-interest of the parties. Thereafter, the property fell to the share of Paras Ram, who was having two sons, namely, Radha Krishan and Hans Raj. After the death of Radha Krishan, his two sons Banarsi Dass and Sunder Lal succeeded to his share in the property. When Banarsi Dass died, he left behind three sons, Som Nath, Dharam Parkash @ Pahari and Brij Mohan. Hence, they filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence by producing the following documents:-