VED BASSI Vs. MANJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for brevity 'the Code'), for setting aside order dated 28.11.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar, along with an application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code by permitting him to bring on record orders dated 4.10.1978 and 5.3.1984 which were passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Consolidation Officer, respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit against the defendant-respondents seeking a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the alleged sale-deeds executed by one set of defendant-respondents in favour of another set of defendant- respondents were illegal and void. It has further been prayed that the sale- deeds were not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kharar on 29.2.1996 and the judgment and decree was challenged in the first appeal. During the pendency of appeal, an application was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code for permission to adduce additional evidence which has been allowed by the impugned order. It was alleged by Jagmohan Singh (now represented by defendant-respondents 1 to 6) that the plaintiff-petitioner had relied on an order dated 4.11.1976 which was set aside on 4.10.1978 by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and the case was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for passing order afresh after affording opportunities to parties. The Consolidation Officer then decided the case on 15.3.1984. Learned Appellate Court considered both the orders as relevant to the decision of the controversy in appeal and the operative parts of its orders read as under :-

(3.) MR . P.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents, however, contends that the appeal was listed for hearing along with the application on 16.9.1998, and subsequently on 14.10.1998. He has referred to various interlocutory orders, showing that the appeal was listed along with the application in 1998. Learned counsel has maintained that appeal is always listed along with the application. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel has insisted that learned Appellate Court has pointed out relevancy of both the documents and has felt the necessary of these documents for fair decision of the appeal.