AMIR CHAND Vs. MUNICIPALITY, THANESAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been contested by the plaintiff/appellant. I have considered the submissions on this application as well. It is a settled principle that additional evidence can be allowed at appellate stage in order to pronounce the judgment in an effective manner. The basic question involved in the present appeal is whether TP scheme No. 5 has been implemented within the prescribed time of 5 years or not. Statement of DW 1 Sher Singh is sought to be diluted by the respondent by way of bringing adequate evidence to show that the TP scheme No. 5 infact was implemented within period of 5 years in public interest. Even the plaintiff has admitted that some of the streets have been laid and in remaining, earth work has already been done. When public cause is pitted against individual cause, then the public interest should prevail and in order to espouse the public cause, the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the respondent is required to be allowed as these documents would facilitate the Court to arrive at just conclusion and Court should require these documents in order to pronounce the judgment satisfactorily. The evidence in question is not intended to fill lacuna in any manner rather the evidence is already in existence. It is a cardinal principle of law that if something remains obscure, the same can be filled by way of additional evidence. The document sought to be produced are necessary and sufficient to deal with the controversy in an effective and judicious manner and these documents will certainly help in pronouncing and adjudicating the controversy in just and fair manner. Therefore, the respondent claims that the Court should require these documents at this stage in the form of additional evidence and ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are fully satisfied. Though the plaintiff has vehemently opposed the application for additional evidence, but at this stage, keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present case where public cause is sought to be espoused with reference to validity or otherwise of scheme No. 5, I am of the view that since implementation of scheme or otherwise as claimed by the parties to the litigation will be having impact upon overall growth of the inhabitants of the locality, therefore, this Court feels that in order to decide the controversy in an effective manner, respondent can be allowed to place on record the order passed in the writ petition as well as the details of plan of plot of persons whose sites were sanctioned during the intervening period from 1975 till 1980, since the existence of scheme is in issue, therefore, the application for impleading applicant Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association as respondent No. 2 is also allowed. Applicant -Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association is ordered to be impleaded as party respondent No. 2 in the present appeal. With the production of additional evidence as well as the preponderance of evidence already existing on record, it is established that TP scheme was floated and sanctioned on 30.10.1975 stood implemented in view of evidence on record and plaintiff cannot be held entitled to take benefit out of statement of DW 1 Sher Singh alone whose statement has explanatory note in the light of other attending circumstances. In view of aforesaid, it has to be held that TP scheme has been implemented on the spot.

(2.) Defendant contested the suit on all counts. Defendant claimed that the scheme No. 5 has been sanctioned by the government on 30.10.1975 and the same is applicable. It has been pleaded that according to scheme No. 5, the land in question has been reserved for Municipal Park and Municipal Committee, Thanesar is the owner of the land. Existence of cinema has not been denied but due to adoption and sanctioning of scheme, defendant has become owner of the property, therefore, question of dis -possession of the plaintiff by the defendant does not arise.

(3.) After filing replication by the plaintiff, following issues were framed by the trial Court: -