RAM NIWAS Vs. KALU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 15.12.2008, passed by the court below, whereby in an application filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned lower appellate court, he has been permitted to lead additional e6dence. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 -Kalu Ram filed a suit for declaration that adoption deed No. 9 dated 10.5.2000 executed by Jai Ram son of Ram Chander in favour of Ram Niwas son of Matadin is a result of fraud, misrepresentation and merely a paper transaction, hence, not binding on the rights of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1. Further challenge was to the release deed No. 697 dated 15.6.2000 executed by Jai Ram in favour of Ram Niwas. The parties are related to each other. The pedigree table, as is noticed by Ci6l Judge (Junior Di6sion), Mahendergarh in its judgment dated 27.7.2006, is extracted below:

(2.) THE suit filed by respondent No. 1 ha6ng been dismissed, he preferred appeal before the learned court below. In appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed seeking permission to lead additional e6dence to produce on record certified copy of the plaint in Ci6l Suit No. 12 of 2001, titled as "Jai Ram v. Ram Niwas". decided on 27.4.2002, certified copy of Ci6l Suit No. 679 of 2000 filed on 15.12.2000 by Ram Niwas against Jai Ram and written statement filed by Jai Ram and the agreement to sell in Ci6l Suit No. 315/RT of 2001 instituted on 14.5.2001, titled as "Smt. Sushila v. Jai Ram and others",. The learned court below after considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties accepted the application 6de impugned order dated 15.12.2008 and permitted respondent No. 1 to prove the documents in question by way of additional e6dence. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the case set up by respondent No. 1 for permitting him to lead additional e6dence at the appellate stage was clearly made out in terms of the pro6sions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The conditions laid down therein are fully satisfied. It is not that all the conditions prescribed are to be fulfilled collectively. Even if either of them is satisfied, the party can be permitted to lead additional e6dence. The subject -matter of pending litigation is the adoption of petitioner by respondent No. 2 and a release deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. The ci6l suits, the pleadings of which have been permitted to be produced by way of additional e6dence, are also pertaining to the same dispute. In those suits, the parties have made certain admissions, which would be relevant for decision of the present suit. Even if respondent No. 1 had knowledge about two suits, as has been pleaded in the plaint, but still non production thereof at the trial stage will not be fatal and he can always be permitted to produce these documents on record at the appellate stage by way of additional e6dence. Ci6l Suit No. 315/RT of 2001 titled as "Smt. Sushila v. Jai Ram and others", was not in knowledge of respondent No. 1 as there is no pleading to that effect in the plaint. Once it is established that the documents, which have been permitted to be produced in additional e6dence have relevance in pending lis and further there is no chance of fabrication thereof as these are nothing else but certified copies of the pleadings filed by the parties in other litigation, no illegality has been committed by the court below while permitting respondent No. 1 to prove these documents by way of additional e6dence. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed upon Smt. Bhulia De6 v. Smt. Sheela De6, (1998 -3) 120 P.L.R. 363; M/s Amba Maa Mills v. Haryana State Indl. Dev. Corpn. and another,, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Ci6l) 637 and Gurdial Singh and others v. Mam Chand and others, (2011 -1)161 P.L.R. 31.