PARSHOTAM SAINI Vs. RAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence.

(2.) The examination of Kirpal Singh in the present suit would not give rise to any ground in favour of the appellants to seek production of additional evidence of his statement recorded in the suit for possession, particularly when no such context is involved in the present case. In the present case, sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 prior to coming into force of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act is involved. The issue is purely a legal issue to be considered by this Court in view of scope of the aforesaid sale deed to be considered at the threshold of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act.

(3.) The statement of Kirpal Singh would not improve the case of the appellants in any manner, nor the same can be allowed to be led at this stage, particularly when no such record of suit of possession was summoned by the trial Court at the 2 of 12 time of consideration of the suit on merits.