ASHOK KUMAR Vs. AMAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, an application was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for leading additional evidence in order to substantiate their claim regarding the nature of the property being ancestral one. They had produced the mutation Ex.P-4, copy of the jamabandi Ex.P-4/A and shizra nisab Ex.P-8, which were attested by the Legal Keeper/Saddar Copying Agency, Kasur (Pakistan) and the Section Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad (Pakistan). The Civil Judge while holding that the said documents were not proved as per the provisions of Section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act, refused to place reliance. The petitioner was in a mistaken belief that the said documents were duly certified and could be considered by the Court, but the same in violation of Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act were not taken into consideration, therefore, now they have sought permission to produce these documents duly attested in accordance with the provisions of Section 78 (6) of the Indian Evidence Act by way of additional evidence.

(2.) THE said application was duly contested. The Lower Appellate Court after hearing arguments on merits as well as on the application allowed the application for leading additional evidence subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-.

(3.) A wide discretion has been conferred by the Code to refuse or to accept the additional evidence. I am fortified by my this view, from the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Singh and others v. Naresh Chandra and another, 2001(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 454 : (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 309 wherein it was observed as under :-