WALIDEEN AND OTHERS Vs. ALIM HASSEN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of the appeal, pursuant to an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, appellant-plaintiffs, respondents herein, have been allowed to lead additional evidence in the nature of production of certified copy of plaint of an earlier litigation reference qua which is contained in recitals of agreement to sell in question.

(2.) The petitioners, who are respondent-defendants in the appeal, have challenged the said order in this revision petition, claiming that the agreement to sell is a false and fabricated document as Fazludeen had never executed the same and that the land was ancestral property of the defendants and of the reversioners. It is claimed that the first appellate court wrongly allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure as the plaintiffs were in possession of the said document and could have produced the same during the proceedings of the lower court when opportunity was available with them to produce such evidence. It is also claimed that allowing of production of additional evidence in the appeal amounts to filling up lacuna by the respondent-appellants.

(3.) Stand of the applicant-appellants, respondents herein, per contra is that the document allowed to be produced in additional evidence is in the nature of certified copy of the plaint of another case, which document is beyond manipulation and thus could not have been created by the respondent-applicants-appellants. It is also urged that the said document is necessary for effective, complete and competent adjudication of the matter in controversy and thus had rightly been allowed by the court below.