GURNEK SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Gurbachan Singh, respondent No. 1, was owner of 34 Kanals 10 Marlas of land being 1/2 share of the land described in detail in the suit situated at village Nijjran, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. He made alienation of a part of the land in favour of respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners are respectively the son and wife of said Gurbachan Singh They instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the said defendant No. 1 from alienating ancestral property without legal necessity and that the alienation already made by him was void and of no effect against the right, tide and interest of the plaintiffs. The suit was contested. By order dated January 5, 1984, Subordinate Judge 1st Class Jalandhar, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. During the pendency of the appeal in the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff-appellants made an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking to produce the following documents as additional evidence:

(2.) THE application was resisted and by order dated September 28, 1991, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that the application was intended to fill in lacuna, which could not be permitted, and (2) that additional evidence could not be permitted in view of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in an earlier revision petition Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. H. L. Sarin. Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the documents sought to be produced were certified copies of public record. Their authenticity was not open to doubt. He further contended that the documents were necessary for a correct decision of the question in controversy, namely, whether the land in question was ancestral in the hands of Gurbachan Singh. He placed reliance on Ashwani Kumar v. Gopal Krishan, 1989 (2) Rent L. R. 344. in which it was held that where the documents sought to be produced' by way of additional evidence were of unimpeachable character, the same should oreinarily be allowed on payment of costs.