RAM KUMAR Vs. RAJENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is, in revision petition, aggrieved against the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby his application for permission to lead additional evidence in appeal was declined.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 114 of 1993 decided in 17.4.1993 are collusive, based on fraud and misrepresentation as well as null and void. It is alleged that Chhotu Ram, predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiff, never exchanged the land measuring 30 Kanals 16 Marlas with the land situated at village Mandhana, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, with Rajender Singh etc. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27.9.1999. However, during the pendency of appeal, the plaintiff -petitioner moved an application for permission to lead evidence on 10.10.2003 seeking to produce the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2002, police report dated 18.11.1999, copies of Alkas Sajra and Khasra Girdwari. The learned First Appellate Court declined such application on the ground that the documents sought to be produced in additional evidence were much in the knowledge of the plaintiff but no such application was moved at earlier stage of the appeal. Thus, the learned First Appellate Court found no merit in the application and dismissed the same.

(3.) The reasoning given by the learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. Two of the documents, in fact, came into existence after the decision of the suit by the trial Court on 27.9.1999 i.e. judgment and decree dated 7.1.2002 and police report dated 18.11.1999. The learned First Appellate Court was expected to permit the plaintiff -petitioner to prove the subsequent event to arrive at just decision. Similarly, Akash Sajra and Khasra Girdawari are the revenue records. Even if such revenue records are produced in evidence, its relevance to the controversy involved in the suit is to be adjudicated upon by the learned First Appellate Court. Therefore, the mere fact that there was delay in moving the application for permission to lead additional evidence is not sufficient to decline such prayer.