VIMAL KUMAR TULSYAN Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interlocutory application being I.A. No.6398 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the respondent under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') to bring on record some additional evidence which was not in knowledge of the respondent and same is essential to be examined by the Court to pronounce the judgment.

(2.) The respondent has filed the Original Suit No.392 of 2016 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property. The learned trial court vide judgment dtd. 30/8/2022 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. Against the said judgment and decree, this first appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant. Learned counsel for the respondent while verifying the records of this case, found that Ext.1/a which is the sale deed no.3116 dtd. 27/3/1985 by which the vendor of the respondent, namely, Smt. Usha Goenka had purchased the suit property does not refer to the suit property. On inquiry being made, the vendor had informed that two sale deeds bearing nos.3116 and 3117 dtd. 27/3/1985 was executed between Kanti Lal J. Chanchani, Jagdish J. Chanchani and M/s. Dossa Estate (P) Limited (sellers) and Sri Umesh Chand, Smt. Pushpa Chand, Sri Shishir Goenka and Usha Goenka (purchasers). It seems that inadvertently the reference of sale deed no.3117 dtd. 27/3/1985 was omitted in the sale deed no.4949 dtd. 11/7/2003 by which the respondent has acquired right, title and interest in the property in question. The certified copy of the sale deed no.3117 dtd. 27/3/1985 is Annexure-IA/1 of this interlocutory application.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta vehemently opposed the contentions of this interlocutory application on the ground that the said document was very much in knowledge of the respondent from the date of filing the original suit. If the said document is allowed to be taken on record, it would cause serious prejudice to the appellant. Moreso, when there is no pleadings in the plaint in regard to this document which is sought to be taken on record. By way of adducing the additional document at the stage of the appeal, the respondent wants to fill up the lacuna on account of which the very suit of the respondent/plaintiff would fail.