HUKAM CHAND Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the precise question that falls for determination in this revision. In order to discuss this issue in some elaboration, the Court must advert itself to the various relevant provisions read them together rather than to read this particular provision in isolation to give interpretation to the relevant rules. The Court has to consider cumulative effect and various pros and cons arising as a result of harmonious construction of these provisions. They must be read in conjunction with the basic provisions delating to adducing of evidence and production of documents etc. It is a settled principle of law that appeal is a continuation of suit and, therefore, the provisions of Order 18 of the Code as a whole would necessarily have a bearing on this aspect as well.

(2.) HOWEVER , before discussing this legal controversy in its larger dimensions, it would be necessary to refer to the facts, which in any case, fall in a short compass.

(3.) THE learned trial Court after framing the issues and permitting the parties to lead evidence in support of their case, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 1. 6. 1990 (Suit No. 286 of 1989 ). This decree was challenged in appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. Along with the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code was filed. Vide this application the respondents wanted to produce on record some documents and lead additional evidence in regard to the pleadings of the parties and order of withdrawal dated 25. 11. 1992 passed in suit No. 670 of 1991. This application was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 28. 2. 1997. The learned First Appellate Court considered it proper to deal with the additional evidence and consequently the appeal is still pending before the First Appellate Court. It is the order dated 28. 2. 1997 which as been impugned in the present revision petition.