The Punjab and Haryana Hugh Court set aside the order passed by First Appellate Court and observed that a registered sale deed is not a public document but a private document and production of the sale deed does not dispense with the need for proof of execution of the document.

Brief Facts:

A revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court which allowed the application for allowing the filing of additional evidence by the defendants.

Contentions of the Applicant:

The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that the First Appellate Court erred in accepting the application for additional evidence and the impugned order could not be permitted in law. It was further argued that the application of the respondent derived to be quashed as they had not fulfilled the requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Reliance was placed upon Rekha Vs. Smt. Ratnashree, Kamlesh Rani Vs. Balwani Singh and some other judgments by the counsel in support of his arguments.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the revision petition was not maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the First Appellate Court. The petitioner can challenge such an order when filing the second appeal. It was further argued that the First Appellate Court can always allow additional evidence where it is felt that such documents are necessary for deciding the real controversy. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Gurdev Singh Vs. Mehnga Ram, Ram Niwas Vs. Kalu Ram & Anr. and some other cases for furthering the arguments.

Observations of the Court:

The court observed that it deemed it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order as the same was passed in a very casual manner and was without jurisdiction. The court further stated that the application itself was bereft of any reason why the evidence now sought to be produced could not be led earlier.

It was further observed that a registered sale deed is not a public document but a private document and the production of the sale deed does not dispense with the need for proof of execution of the document and the First Appellate Court, by treating the sale deeds as if they were per se admissible in evidence had allowed additional evidence which cannot be permitted in law.

The decision of the Court:

The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order and remanded the order back to the First Appellate Court to decide the application for additional evidence afresh and in accordance with law.

Case Title: Amarjit Ram vs Vikas Aggarwal and Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin

Case No.: CR-1899-2017 (O&M)

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Amit Dhawan

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Amit Jain and Mr. Dhruv Mittal

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Kritika