- (1.) BOTH the cases are connected and they are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE appeals against the order are for a direction for remand of the case while disposing of the appeal filed to it along with an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The documents sought to be produced were copies of jamabandis to establish the particular link which the trial Court had observed was not there to uphold the claim of the plaintiff for title to the property. The point in issue was whether a sale by Kehar Singh and Gurbax Singh to Gujjar Singh was the very same property which was the subject matter of suit and that proof was sought to be adduced by the production of revenue records.
(3.) THE respondent in appeal before the court below has the following objections: (i) the order has been passed disposing of the appeal along with the application without affording to the respondents in appeal to state their objections to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. His further objection is that the court has only a power to either call for finding from the trial Court on the documents or he should have itself allowed for proof to be given for the additional evidence which has been filed before the appellate Court. The counsel would further argue that the document produced before the appellate Court as additional evidence ought to have been filed by the plaintiff even at the trial Court itself and there was no valid justification for its non -production at the trial. He would point out that the explanation given by the plaintiff for non -filing the same at the trial Court on account of the issue not being properly framed cannot be taken to be a valid justification. I have seen through the pleadings and the area of controversy. The trial Court has actually found that the plaintiff has been able to show his entitlement to 92 bighas 13 biswas of land, but it has still held that he was unable to bring a continuous chain of transactions linking the suit property to the property purchased by Gujjar Singh from Kehar Singh and Gurbax Singh. The matter for resolving the controversy between parties seems narrow and if the revenue records can secure the proof which will help one or the other parties to bring the most vital piece of evidence for establishing the title, it ought to be allowed. If the plaintiff had a justification that there were no proper issues framed for not filing the documents, it cannot be taken to totally irrelevant, for, framing the issues is an essential duty of the court more than of the parties. If the focus to trial was not correctly directed to the area of controversy and if the party complains that he was therefore misled into not filing the documents, I would think that the plaintiff ought to be given that opportunity. No doubt that the court could not have passed an order under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and dispose of the appeal without giving appropriate opportunity to the adversary to state his objections. I have heard the objections of the counsel for the appellants now and his objections seem to be on areas which I have already outlined above. No objection is substantial but they are substantially grounded to the fact that he ought to have by the exercise of due diligence filed the documents. The authenticity of documents themselves cannot be seriously in challenge, for, they are certified copies of revenue entries which are permanent records of the revenue department. Substantial justice would be done if proof of those documents are allowed to be brought.;