RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order passed by the appellate Court admitting an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce additional evidence in appeal. The appeal is still said to be pending. The Court, while allowing the application, has observed that the respondent had also filed an application to receive additional evidence and if that was to be allowed, the application filed by the petitioner bringing some old documents purporting to prove the jointness of ownership in relation to the property by the predecessors will be relevant and will have to be admitted. I do not think, any prejudice will be caused by the production of these records considering the fact that the present petitioner's application for reception of additional evidence purports to show the property to belong to their common ancestor, which the transaction of sale by the appellants during the pendency of appeal disposing of a portion of the property as though it belongs to them absolutely, brought as additional evidence by the respondents, will itself be answer to the contentions raised by the appellant through the additional documents. I do not, therefore, think that there is any scope for intervention. Before parting, I must observe that it is irregular procedure for an appellate Court to deal with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC independently and dispose it of before the appeal is disposed of. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC reads as follows:-

(2.) The revision petition is dismissed.