IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 Gajraj and others Dharambir Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision 8(ii) & 22 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P District Judge, Palwal Nos. 1 to 3 herein additional evidence, has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Civil Suit 02.07.2013 (Annexure P possession; which and decree dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P 3. Aggrieved thereof the plaintiff 02.01.2018 (Annexure P Palwal. During application dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P for additional evidence. The contesting defendants had filed the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2593 Date of Decision: April 30, 2025 Gajraj and others Versus Dharambir Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed by defendant (ii) & 22 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) District Judge, Palwal whereby application filed by the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for additional evidence, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Civil Suit 02.07.2013 (Annexure P-1) was filed by the plaintiff ; which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved thereof the plaintiffs had filed Civil appeal No.5 dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure P-4) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, uring the pendency of the said appeal t application dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence. The contesting defendants had filed the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2593-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 30, 2025 .… Petitioners .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate petition has been filed by defendants No. 1, 2, 7(iv), (ii) & 22 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside 7) passed by learned Additional whereby application filed by the plaintiff/respondent der 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Civil Suit dated by the plaintiffs for declaration and sed by the learned trial court vide judgment 3). had filed Civil appeal No.5 dated 4) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, of the said appeal the plaintiffs had moved an 5) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence. The contesting defendants had filed their reply dated 7(iv), (ii) & 22 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside passed by learned Additional whereby application filed by the plaintiff/respondent der 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for dated for declaration and sed by the learned trial court vide judgment had filed Civil appeal No.5 dated 4) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he plaintiffs had moved an 5) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC reply dated ARCHANA ARORA 2025.05.03 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14.12.2023 (Annexure P impugned order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P plaintiffs has 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Appellate Court cannot be allowed except in the three situations envisaged in Rule 27.It is submitted that in the present case none of the three eventualities are satisfied. It CPC has not been engrafted to the case and to fill up legal submissions in the lacunae or gaps in the evidence le it is necessary for the Appellate Court to record w is able to pronounce the judgment on the material into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. 5. It is submitted that with the appeal an application by them vide order dated application19 almost 7 years. Accordingly aside. 6. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in great detail. 8. A perusal of the plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC shows that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiffs 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) to the said application. order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P s been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the application for additional evidence before Appellate Court cannot be allowed except in the three situations envisaged .It is submitted that in the present case none of the three eventualities are satisfied. It is argued that provision CPC has not been engrafted to enable parties and to fill up legal submissions in the lacunae or gaps in the evidence led by them before the trial court. Moreover, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to record w to pronounce the judgment on the material into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. submitted that even the bona fides of the plaintiffs with the appeal on 02.01.2018 (Annexure P application for amendment of plaint; which was subsequently withdrawn by them vide order dated application19.02.2025 almost 7 years. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in A perusal of the application filed dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC shows that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiffs include 2 6) to the said application. However, vide the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) the said application of the submits that as per the provisions of the application for additional evidence before the Appellate Court cannot be allowed except in the three situations envisaged .It is submitted that in the present case none of the three is argued that provision of Order 41 Rule 27 enable parties to patch up the weak points in and to fill up legal submissions in the Court of Appeal or to fill any by them before the trial court. Moreover, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to record whether the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. the bona fides of the plaintiffs is not clear as, along on 02.01.2018 (Annexure P-9), the plaintiffs had also filed which was subsequently withdrawn .02.2025 (Annexure P-9) i.e. after that the impugned order be set No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in d 19.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) by the under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC shows that the additional evidence included the following documents: - the 7) the said application of the provisions of the Appellate Court cannot be allowed except in the three situations envisaged .It is submitted that in the present case none of the three 7 points in any by them before the trial court. Moreover, the Appellate Court before it without taking along plaintiffs had also filed which was subsequently withdrawn ) i.e. after that the impugned order be set I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file in by the under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC shows that the additional evidence ARCHANA ARORA 2025.05.03 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. A bare perusal of the above documents reveals that the old revenue record well nigh impossible for the plaintiff to procure the said revenue record. Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is reproduced as under: “Order 41…… 27. Production of addit (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if - (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or 1[(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or] “That at the time of leading evidence before the Ld. Lower Court some valuable documents were not available to the appellants/plaintiffs. Now the appellants/plaintiffs want to submit the following documents: i)Certified copies of Jamabandi for the year 1955 1957-58, 1945-46, 1940-41, 1938 1922-23, 1918-19, 1914-15, 1910 1902-03, 1898-99, 1894-95, 1890 ii)Jamabandi Urdu version for the year of 1945 1940-43, 1938-39, 1930-31, 1926 1914-15, 1910-11, 1907-08, 1903 1894-95, 1890-91, 1886-87. iii) Certified Copies of Jamabandi for the year of 2020 21, 2005-06, 2000-2001, 1995 1980-81, 1975-76, 1970-71, 1965 version of 1900-04. bare perusal of the above documents reveals that the old revenue record, some almost 150 years ago. Needless to say, it would be well nigh impossible for the plaintiff to procure the said revenue record. Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is reproduced as under: “Order 41…… 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or] 3 “That at the time of leading evidence before the Ld. Lower uable documents were not available to the appellants/plaintiffs. Now the appellants/plaintiffs want to submit the following documents:- Certified copies of Jamabandi for the year 1955-56, 41, 1938-39, 1930-31, 1928-29, 15, 1910-11, 1907-08, 1903-04, 95, 1890-91, 1886-87. ii)Jamabandi Urdu version for the year of 1945-46, 31, 1926-27, 1922-23, 1918-19, 08, 1903-04, 1902-03, 1898-99, 87. iii) Certified Copies of Jamabandi for the year of 2020- 2001, 1995-96, 1990-91, 1985-86, 71, 1965-66, 1961-62 and Urdu bare perusal of the above documents reveals that the same pertain to very some almost 150 years ago. Needless to say, it would be well nigh impossible for the plaintiff to procure the said revenue record. Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is reproduced as under:- ional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed “That at the time of leading evidence before the Ld. Lower uable documents were not available to the appellants/plaintiffs. Now the appellants/plaintiffs want to 56, 29, 04, 46, 19, 99, - 86, 62 and Urdu same pertain to very some almost 150 years ago. Needless to say, it would be well nigh impossible for the plaintiff to procure the said revenue record. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed ARCHANA ARORA 2025.05.03 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, t or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 10. It is the view of th scope of Rule27(1)(aa) impugned order dated 26.03.2025 parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. In A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. It is the view of this Court that the case of the respondents falls within Rule27(1)(aa) and (b). It is even so recorded in impugned order dated 26.03.2025, which reads as follows: “It is true that the general principal is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and impo on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. In A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 713, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the 4 (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any he Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” ourt that the case of the respondents falls within the It is even so recorded in Para 7 of the reads as follows:- It is true that the general principal is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also he appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on on may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. In A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in , it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any he Appellate Court may allow such evidence (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an the Para 7 of the It is true that the general principal is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also he appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over rtant bearing in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on on may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. In A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in , it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court the upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the ARCHANA ARORA 2025.05.03 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. In view of the above, order. The instant revision petition is 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. April 30, 2025 archana Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.” In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned instant revision petition is dismissed Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 5 appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to able it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the l evidence sought to be adduced.” no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to able it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned ARCHANA ARORA 2025.05.03 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document