KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DAROPDI DEVI ALIAS DAROPTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Sirsa, dated 17th February, 1987, whereby additional evidence has been allowed, in appeal to the defendant against whom suit for specific performance of the trial court has been decreed by the trial Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact, the trial Court closed the defendant's evidence vide order dated 17th December, 1984, as the defendant has failed to produce any evidence and that being so, the question of granting permission for leading additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure did not arise.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The learned District Judge has allowed the additional evidence with the observations, "after hearing and in the interest of justice, it is ordered that let Shri Din Dayal, petition writer, be examined in evidence. If necessary the plaintiff respondent shall also be given adequate opportunity for rebuttal." The whole approach of the learned District Judge is misconceived. It is not disputed that the defendants did not lead any evidence in support of their case before the trial court and ultimately their evidence was closed on 17th December, 1984. Under the circumstances, the question of allowing additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code did not arise. Consequently, the petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the District Judge is directed the decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.