ORDER : 1. The judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 465 of 1976 dated 25th April, 2007 is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The father of the appellant mortgaged the property in the form of usufructuary mortgage to one Mr. Beliram. The property was situated in Pakistan. After partition, the parties shifted to India. Since the appellant and his family were displaced from Pakistan, entire family was rehabilitated by providing alternative agriculture land in Village Bhatoya in favour of the father of the appellant. However, Beliram, the mortgagee also shifted to India and stayed in the same village and continued to hold the property which was provided to appellant’s father in India for the purpose of rehabilitation as the mortgagee. Beliram transferred his mortgaged rights, in respect of the mortgaged property situated in India in favour of one Mr. Sohan Singh-respondent. After demise of appellant's father, the appellant filed the suit for redemption of mortgage. The Courts below including the High Court have dismissed the suit on the ground that no adequate material is produced by the appellant to show that he is the owner of the property and that he has mortgaged the property in favour of either Beliram or Sohan Singh. 3. It is relevant to note here itself that the appellant's father had owned another property in Pakistan which also was mortgaged in favour of one Inder Singh and one Jagat singh. Almost similar facts as mentioned supra regarding shifting to India after partition, rehabilitation, allotment of land & mortgage etc. are applicable to the case of Inder singh & Jagat Singh also. The appellant filed suit for redemption of mortgage in respect of the mortgaged land situated in India against Inder singh & Jagat singh and the said suit came to be decreed throughout. During the pendency of the said suit, the appellant herein went to Pakistan and obtained all the relevant records pertaining to the property in the said case and the same were produced. Ultimately based on such documents, the Courts including this Court held that the appellant's father and thereafter the appellant was owner & mortgagor of the said property and thus are entitled to redemption of mortgage. As mentioned supra, suit for redemption filed against Inder Singh & Jagat Singh was decreed. 4. Ultimately based on such documents, the Courts including this Court held that the appellant's father and thereafter the appellant was owner & mortgagor of the said property and thus are entitled to redemption of mortgage. As mentioned supra, suit for redemption filed against Inder Singh & Jagat Singh was decreed. 4. Coming back to the case on hand, during the pendency of the matter before the High Court it seems, after the disposal of the matter by the first appellate court, as mentioned supra, the appellant herein went to Pakistan in 1985 and secured all the relevant records in respect of the property which was mortgaged in favour of Beliram and also the subsequent records pertaining to allotment of property by the Government of India after rehabilitation. All such records were produced by the appellant before this Court during the pendency of the special leave petition i.e. SLP(C) No. 7531 of 1985. Ultimately this Court remitted the matter to the High Court in the year 1993 for fresh disposal in accordance with law. During the pendency of the matter on hand before the High Court, the appellant filed an application for production of additional evidence i.e. basically for producing the relevant records obtained by him from Pakistan pertaining to the property which were produced by the appellant during the pendency of special leave petition. The High Court, strangely, took a hyper-technical view and rejected such application and thereafter proceeded to confirm the Judgment of dismissal of the suit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us to the material on record and the documents which are sought to be produced before the High Court. We find that such documents were necessary before the High Court for just decision of the case. Almost very documents were produced in the case of Inder Singh & Jagat Singh which were accepted & relied upon. 6. In our considered opinion, rejection of the appellant’s application by the High Court for producing the additional evidence has led to mis-carriage of justice. The documents that the appellant has subsequently with great difficulty retrieved from the Government of Pakistan prima facie show that the appellant's family was owning the land which was originally mortgaged & that the appellant’s family was subsequently allotted another agricultural land for the purpose of rehabilitation in India, and the same is held by the respondent. The documents that the appellant has subsequently with great difficulty retrieved from the Government of Pakistan prima facie show that the appellant's family was owning the land which was originally mortgaged & that the appellant’s family was subsequently allotted another agricultural land for the purpose of rehabilitation in India, and the same is held by the respondent. Since the records sought to be produced by the appellant before the High Court are very much necessary to decide the matter in an appropriate and fair manner, the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside. So also the application for amendment of plaint needs to be allowed inasmuch as amendment is necessary, in view of the additional documents which are sought to be produced. 7. Accordingly, the application for leading additional evidence as well as the application filed for amendment of plaint produced before the High Court are hereby allowed. The matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. We place on record that it will be open for the High Court to get the evidence and the findings recorded both oral & documentary by the first appellate court. After getting such findings, the second appeal shall be decided by the High Court. We hope that the High Court will make endeavour to decide the second appeal as early as possible. 8. The appeal is allowed as mentioned supra. No order as to costs.