SOBHA Vs. BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order dated 3-91979 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Kangra, whereby an application under Order 18, Rule 17A and Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners was rejected. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and injunction in respect of the land in suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but the respondents preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal on 21-9-1970 and remanded the case to the trial court, after framing two additional issues. The additional issues so framed are reproduced as under :-

(2.) The 1 earned Additional District Judge while remanding the case to the trial court made a direction that the parties be allowed to adduce evidence on the two additional issues and that. !he suit be decided afresh. It may be pointed out that the petitioners at the time when the appeal was pending before the learned Additional District Judge filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing them to produce additional evidence in the case. The only additional evidence which was intended to be produced was an attested copy of an entry reflected in the register of deaths and births regarding the death of Shri Chartu. The petitioners had filed the attested copy of such an entry along with the application and the application was filed on 13th of December, 1969 and was supported by an affidavit.

(3.) The petitioners desired to tender in evidence the death certificate of Shri Chartu in the Court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Kangra which they had not filed soon after the case was remanded to that court by the learned Additional District Judge. It was why they filed the application under Order It, Rule 17A and Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive the said copy in evidence. The learned Sub-Judge, however, has rejected that application on 3rd of September, 1979. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Sub-Judge, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.