Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) The present petition has been directed against order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby application dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.1/appellant for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage has been allowed.
(2.) The sole grievance of the petitioner is that as the application for adducing additional evidence filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') is to be decided while hearing the appeal on merits, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India State of Rajasthan v. T. Sahani, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 419 . Further reference has been made to judgment of this Court Smt. Surjit Kaur and another v. Bhupinder Singh Waraich, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 563 . In addition, it is argued that even the Court of appeal in the impugned order has held that so far relevancy or irrelevancy of additional evidence is concerned, that is the subject matter of appeal and not of this application. It is further submitted that unless the Court holds that the additional evidence is relevant for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy, application for additional evidence otherwise cannot be sustained.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, has supported the impugned order with the submissions that as the documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence were not to the knowledge of the respondent/appellant as he was not a party to the litigation to which the documents pertain, he had no occasion to know about the documents at an earlier occasion and produce them at an appropriate stage of the proceedings before the trial Court. It is further argued that one of the documents even came into existence subsequent to decision by the trial Court.;