Narain Singh and Others vs Amarjeet Kaur and Another

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by District Judge, Ambala whereby he has dismissed application preferred by defendant-petitioners for leading additional evidence. Learned counsel has assailed the order. According to him, similar application moved by plaintiff at the appellate stage was allowed by the District Judge. As petitioners have right to rebut the additional evidence sought to be led by the plaintiff, instant application was moved. Same has been erroneously rejected by the court below. According to him, order is unsustainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. Suit was decreed by the trial court. Defendant-petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ambala. During the pendency of appeal, an application was moved by the plaintiff for placing on record order passed by the High court in C.W.P. No. 1558 of 2013. Same was disposed off with the observation that the effect of the said order on the appeal would be considered at the time of final arguments. Petitioners, thereafter, moved instant application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to lead additional evidence and to examine two witnesses. Prayer has been rejected by the court below observing that examination of witnesses at this stage would lead to de-novo trial. I find no infirmity with the order passed by the court below. There can be no doubt that if defendant-petitioners are allowed to examine the witnesses by way of additional evidence at the appellate stage it would lead to denovo trial. Dismissed.