SUKH DEI Vs. VIDYA DEVI (MST )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 8.3.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge Reasi, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 seeking to produce additional evidence has been rejected. Relevant facts for disposal of the present revision be noticed as under:

(2.) RESPONDENTS filed a suit for declaration on the ground that respondent No. 1 is legally wedded wile of deceased Kuti Ram and respondents No. 2 to 4 being born out of the wedlock between Kuti Ram and respondent No. 1 are the legal heirs of deceased Kuti Ram. It was pleaded that as petitioner No. 1 is not legally wedded wife of decease Kuti Ram and petitioners No: 2 to 5, Sandokhoo Ram, Om Parkash, Gian Singh and Mst Rano are not sons/daughter of deceased Kuti Ram, therefore, respondents are entitled to inherit the estate of deceased Kuti Ram. Respondents also sought decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the respondents over the suit land.

(3.) PETITIONERS contested the suit before the trial Court. After completion of the trial, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1994, passed by the Sub Judge (CJM) Udhampur. Against aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Reasi. When the appeal was listed for arguments, the petitioners moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce photocopy of Electoral Roll for the year 1989 showing petitioners No: 2 to 5, Sandokhoo Ram, Om Parkash, Gian Singh and Mst Rano are sons/daughter of the deceased Kuti Ram and also photocopies of State Subjects and school certificates, showing the parentage of the petitioners No: 2 to 5 as Kuti Ram deceased.