NARANJAN SINGH Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Naranjan Singh-plaintiff filed a suit against Dalip Singh and others for declaration to the effect that he had become the owner of the suit land as the period of redemption thereof had elapsed. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants filed appeal which is now pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved by the defendants for leading additional evidence. A receipt signed by the plaintiff on May 29, 1972 was sought to be produced by way of additional evidence in order to establish that the father of the defendants had redeemed the suit land from the plaintiff and the plaintiff in token thereof had issued that receipt. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. Learned Additional District Judge, however, by the order under vision allowed the application for additional evidence and directed the parties to appear before the trial Court on February 4, 1992 which in turn was asked to submit a report within four months after accepting relevant evidence to prove the receipt. It is against this order, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) I have gone through the impugned order and find that no exception can be taken thereto. There can be no manner of doubt that receipt has been produced at the appellate stage and no defence to that effect had been taken in the written statement. But the learned Additional District Judge, having regard to the fact that the parties are closely related, being brothers, and the receipt being of the year 1972 and attested by two witnesses and also being an important and relevant document has bearing on the merits of the case, allowed the application. The only objection to the grant of the application seems to be that the receipt was not produced nor relied upon in the trial Court and that such a document could be fabricated at any time. This objection of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The parties will get enough chance to produce evidence before the trial Court to prove the genuineness or otherwise, of the receipt which has been permitted to be produced by way of additional evidence. The receipt has a direct bearing on the merits of the case, namely, whether the suit land had been redeemed or not. I do not find any Jurisdictional error or any material irregularity or illegality in the order under revision.

(3.) For the revisions aforesaid, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. The trial Court will submit its report, as directed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months, after informing the counsel for the parties in the trial Court. No costs.