Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1428 (HP)

Besri Devi v. Ramku

2018-08-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.99/95 dated 17.3.2003, vide which learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant therein set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge First Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Case No.190-1 of 1988 titled Smt. Ramku Vs. Smt. Rameshwaru and others dated 31.3.1995, whereby the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff Smt. Rumku. 2. This appeal was admitted on 5.9.2003 on the following substantial question of law: “(1) Whether the findings of the reversal of the District Judge that plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu is against the evidence on record and based on inadmissible evidence? 3. Thereafter on 9.5.2018, during the pendency of the appeal, following additional substantial questions of law were framed and the learned counsel for the parties were also heard on the said substantial questions of law:- “1(a) Whether on the material on record the inference drawn by the Court below in respect of a presumption of marriage of Ramku with Ram Dittu is sustainable and the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records could be assumed to be rebutted? 2 Whether the defendants No.2 and 3 who are appellants No.1 and 2 were bonafide purchaser for consideration and the sale affected by the defendant No.1 could be questioned or set aside in the present suit and a decree for possession of half share granted? 3. Whether the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 18 Rule 17A CPC made out and judicial discretion exercise in allowing the additional evidence and reliance thereon is sustainable particularly when in Ex.RX-3, Remeshwari was shown as widow of Prabhu and not Ram Dittu.” 4. 3. Whether the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 18 Rule 17A CPC made out and judicial discretion exercise in allowing the additional evidence and reliance thereon is sustainable particularly when in Ex.RX-3, Remeshwari was shown as widow of Prabhu and not Ram Dittu.” 4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of land measuring 14 biswas comprising in Khasra No.64 Khewat Khatoni No.56/67 as also land measuring 5-11 bighas out of total land measuring 15-15 bighas comprising in khasra Nos.65, 71, 59, 66, 68, Khewat No.69, Khatoni No.68 situated in village Panoh, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, with further prayer that defendants be restrained permanently from dis-possessing the plaintiff from the suit land. In the alternative, plaintiff had prayed for decree for possession, if she failed to prove her possession over the suit land or was dis-possessed from the suit land by the defendants. 5. As per the plaintiff, the suit land was earlier owned and possessed by Ram Dittu, who died issueless. Plaintiff being successor-in-interest, succeeded to the said property, as Ram Dittu had married her through the custom of ‘Nath Chadar’ prevalent in the community of the plaintiff. It was further her case that after the performance of the custom of ‘Nath Chadar’, she and Ram Dittu lived as husband and wife till the death of Ram Dittu. As per plaintiff, earlier she was married to Tota Ram, who died and after the death of Tota Ram, custom of ‘Nath Chadar’ was performed with Ram Dittu. Said Ram Dittu had succeeded to the share of Narainu, son of Nagdu. According to the plaintiff, after the death of one Smt. Bohri, her estate also dwelled upon the plaintiff, as Bohri was the mother of late Ram Dittu. It was further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Ram Dittu, defendant No.1 had started interfering in the suit land and had threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land by claiming herself to be owner in possession of the suit land. It was further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Ram Dittu, defendant No.1 had started interfering in the suit land and had threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land by claiming herself to be owner in possession of the suit land. It was further the case of the plaintiff that when she inquired from the revenue authorities, she came to know that the name of plaintiff was not entered in the revenue records and it was defendant No.1, who was reflected as widow of late Ram Dittu, which entries as per the plaintiff were incorrect. It was on these pleadings that the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration as also injunction. 6. Defendant No.1 did not file any written statement. However, written statement was filed by defendants No.2 and 3, who denied the claim of the plaintiff. As per defendants No.2 and 3, plaintiff was widow of Tota Ram and she had falsely alleged that she was widow of Ram Dittu. As per said defendants, defendant No.1 was the widow of Ram Dittu, who had re-married one Prabhu Ram. After the death of Ram Dittu, defendant No.1 had succeeded to the suit land being widow of Ram Dittu. Mother of Ram Dittu namely Bohri Devi had also executed a will in favour of defendant No.1, vis-a-vis., her share in the suit land. Said defendants also denied the performance of the ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’ between plaintiff and Ram Dittu. Further, as per said defendants, it was defendant No.1, who was the owner in possession of the suit land and who had sold the same vide sale deed dated 6.8.1988 and 21.2.1989 in favour of defendant No.2 and vide sale deed dated 10.4.1989 in favour of defendant No.3. On these basis, the claim of the plaintiff was denied by the said defendants. In the replication, plaintiff re-iterated her claim. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 14 biswas to the extent of 1/12 share out of total land comprised in Khasra No.65/71/59/66/68? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction? 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 14 biswas to the extent of 1/12 share out of total land comprised in Khasra No.65/71/59/66/68? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction? OPP (3) Whether the sale deed dated 6.8.1988 and 21.2.1989 executed in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 and sale deed dated 10.4.1989 in favour of defendant No.3 are wrong, illegal and void and has no bearing on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by her own act and conduct? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 9. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 11. Whether the defendant No.1 is owner in possession of the suit land if so its effect? OPD 12. Relief.” 8. On the basis of evidence lead by the parties, following findings were returned by the learned Trial Court to the issues so framed: Issue No.1. No Issue No.2. No Issue No.3 No Issue No.4 No Issue No.5 No Issue No.6 No Issue No.7 No Issue No.8 No Issue No.9 No Issue No.10 No Issue No.11 Yes Relief The suit of the plaintiffs dismissed with costs as per the operative portion of the judgment. 9. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that it was defendant No.1, who was the first wife of Ram Dittu and that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that there was any dissolution of marriage between them. Learned Trial Court held that the custom of ‘Nath Chadar’ could be solemnized either with the elder brother or younger brother of deceased husband. Learned Trial Court held that the custom of ‘Nath Chadar’ could be solemnized either with the elder brother or younger brother of deceased husband. It held that custom of ‘Nath Chadar’ could not be proved by examining witnesses unless and until it was sufficiently shown that the said custom was prevalent in the community of deceased Ram Dittu and that Ram Dittu happened to be either ‘Devar’ nor ‘Jeth’ of the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court also hold that plaintiff had failed to prove the ingredients of alleged custom of ‘Nath Chadar’ and plaintiff was in fact wife of one Tota Ram and there was nothing on record to show that Ram Dittu was the brother of Tota Ram. It further hold that mere entries in voter list and family register reflecting plaintiff as wife of Ram Dittu were of no relevance, as defendants had adduced more cogent and convincing evidence to the effect that defendant No.1 was the first wife of late Ram Dittu. On these basis, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. 10. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed an appeal. Learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Appellate Court held that in order to establish her relationship with Ram Dittu, plaintiff had examined Prem Singh PW/5, who was Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Gahar and said Secretary had stated that he was secretary of Gram Panchayat, Gahar in the year 1972-73 and had carried out entry in the books of Gram Panchayat (Ext.PW5/A) as per which defendant No.1 was shown as wife of one Shri Prabhu. Learned Appellate Court also hold that PW/5 had deposed that Prabhu had reported his marriage with defendant No.1 in person in Gram Panchayat, Gahar on 2.2.1973 and had signed relevant column of the register, abstract of which was Ext.PW5/A. Learned Appellate Court also hold that no exception could be taken by defendant No.1 to the statement of PW/5. Learned Appellate Court also hold that records demonstrated that Prabhu had reported his marriage with defendant No.1 to the Gram Panchayat more than 10 years before the death of Ram Dittu and there was no occasion for either the plaintiff or PW/5 to fabricate record against defendant No.1 as far back as in the year 1973. Learned Appellate Court also hold that records demonstrated that Prabhu had reported his marriage with defendant No.1 to the Gram Panchayat more than 10 years before the death of Ram Dittu and there was no occasion for either the plaintiff or PW/5 to fabricate record against defendant No.1 as far back as in the year 1973. Learned Appellate Court also hold that PW4 Hem Raj had stated that his father Prabhu had married Bohri on 2.12.1972 and at the time of marriage of defendant No.1 with Prabhu, his age, i.e., the age of PW/4 was about 10 to 12 years and thus, he was old enough to notice the events. Learned Appellate Court also hold that as mother of PW/4 was dead, it was thereafter that defendant No.1 married Prabhu and in the books of Gram Panchayat, Gahar, she was consistently recorded as wife of Prabhu. Learned Appellate Court also took note of the fact that defendants No.2 and 3 did not examine Prabhu with a view to establish that he was not related to defendant No.1 in any manner. Learned Appellate Court also observed that defendant No.1 despite notice had not contested the suit and she was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.2.1990. It further hold that record demonstrated that immediately after the death of her husband, plaintiff had started claiming ownership and possession over the share in the estate of Ram Dittu. 11. Learned Appellate Court further held that Trial Court had committed an error by holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her marriage through the ceremony of ‘Nuth Chadar’ with Ram Dittu. It held that scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence on record demonstrated that the plaintiff stood married to Shri Tota Ram some time in the year 1950 and that she had been putting up with her husband in her matrimonial house. Tota Ram died, which resulted in the dissolution of marriage and after the demise of her first husband, plaintiff settled as wife of Ram Dittu some time in the year 1970. It further held that there was evidence on record that Ram Dittu had married plaintiff and ceremonies of widow re-marriage stood performed. It further held that the factum of the marriage of plaintiff with Ram Dittu stood proved on record by plaintiff witnesses. It further held that there was evidence on record that Ram Dittu had married plaintiff and ceremonies of widow re-marriage stood performed. It further held that the factum of the marriage of plaintiff with Ram Dittu stood proved on record by plaintiff witnesses. Learned Appellate Court also held that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 as also Ram Dittu were low caste Hindus and widow re-marriage through the ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’ was stated to be prevalent amongst such communities. It also held that there was nothing to suggest that widow re-marriage through the ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’ could be performed only with the elder or younger brother of the deceased husband. Learned Appellate Court also held that statements of PW1 Smt. Ramku, PW2 Sukhia and PW/3 Gopala clearly proved re-marriage of plaintiff with Ram Dittu in the year 1970 after the performance of all ceremonies. It also held that as marriage had taken place as far back as in the year 1970, it was not possible for the plaintiff and her witnesses to re-produce all the details of marriage after such a long time. Learned Appellate Court also held that books of Gram Panchayat and electoral rolls reflected plaintiff to be wife of Ram Dittu from the year 1972-73 onwards and it could not be believed that the plaintiff was so recorded erroneously in the books of Gram Panchayat or electoral roll. Learned Appellate Court also held that during the course of the cross-examination of plaintiff, defendants No.2 and 3 never suggested to the plaintiff that she had indicated in the FIR that defendant No.1 was the first wife of Ram Dittu. Learned Appellate Court also took note of the fact that DW/6 had admitted that as per FIR DW6/A, plaintiff was the wife of Ram Dittu. On these basis, it was held by the learned Appellate Court that learned Sub Judge had not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record in its correct perspective and had erred in appreciating the contents of documents especially Ext.P/16 and Ext.P/17, which clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu. On these basis, it was held by the learned Appellate Court that learned Sub Judge had not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record in its correct perspective and had erred in appreciating the contents of documents especially Ext.P/16 and Ext.P/17, which clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu. Learned Appellate Court also held that record demonstrated that Ram Dittu during his life time was a member of Geharwin Co-operative Agricultural Services Society, Ghumarwin, who had purchased one share of said Society and had nominated the plaintiff as his legal heir, by referring plaintiff to be his wife. Learned Appellate Court took note of the fact as per record said share subsequently stood transferred in the name of plaintiff. On these basis, learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal, by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 12. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as the records of the case. 13. I will firstly deal with the first substantial question of law: “(1) Whether the findings of the reversal of the District Judge that plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu is against the evidence on record and based on inadmissible evidence? 14. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 did not file any written statement to the plaint. In other words, the pleadings of the plaintiff were not refuted by way of written statement by defendant No.1. Incidentally, written statement on record is of persons, who purchased the suit land from defendant No.1. In my considered view, the best person to have had controverted the contention of the plaintiff, that she was not the legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu, was defendant No.1. However, she chose not to file the written statement. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 was duly served in the Civil Suit and was also duly represented by counsel before the learned Appellate Court, whereas she was proceeded against ex parte before the learned Trial Court and order of having been proceeded against ex parte was never assailed by her. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 was duly served in the Civil Suit and was also duly represented by counsel before the learned Appellate Court, whereas she was proceeded against ex parte before the learned Trial Court and order of having been proceeded against ex parte was never assailed by her. Be that as it may the fact is that defendant No.1 chose not to contest the case of the plaintiff by way of filing written statement. It is pertinent to mention here that it is not the case of defendants No.2 and 3 that the suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1. This is further evident from the fact that both in the first appeal as also in the present appeal, defendant No.1 was being represented by the same counsel as defendants No.2 and 3. 15. Now, in this background, this Court has to examine as to whether the findings of reversal so recorded by the learned Appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiff was legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu and not defendant No.1 are based on inadmissible evidence? As already mentioned above, learned Appellate Court while holding that it was the plaintiff who was the legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu and not defendant No.1 has relied upon the statements of plaintiff’s witnesses as also on documentary evidence on record including Ext.P-16 and Ext,P-17, as also copy of FIR Ext.DW6/A. A perusal of the record of the case demonstrates that plaintiff entered into the witness box as PW/1 and she stated in the Court that she was the owner in possession of land in dispute in her capacity as legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu. She also deposed in the Court that she was earlier married to Tota Ram and after his death, she married Ram Dittu through the performance of the ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’. Sukhia, who deposed in the Court as PW/2, supported the case of the plaintiff and he deposed in the Court that Ram Dittu was the husband of plaintiff. He also stated in the Court that they were married through the performance of the ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’. He also deposed that he knew the first husband of plaintiff, i.e., Tota Ram. He also stated in the Court that they were married through the performance of the ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’. He also deposed that he knew the first husband of plaintiff, i.e., Tota Ram. He also deposed that when the ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’ was performed, he was present there and he had also worked in the marriage. Similarly, PW/3 Gopala has also supported the case of the plaintiff. He deposed in the court that he knew Ram Dittu and that the plaintiff was the first wife of Ram Dittu. He also stated that plaintiff was earlier married to Tota Ram and after his death, she married Ram Dittu by performance of ceremony of ‘Nath Chadar’. He further deposed that he had attended the marriage. He also deposed that in their community, custom of marriage by way of ‘Nath Chadar’ was prevalent. There is also on record the statement of Hem Raj, who is the foster son of defendant No.1. This witness deposed in the Court that name of his mother was Burfi Devi and after the death of his mother, his father married defendant No.1 on 2.12.1972. He stated that he remembered the factum of the marriage of his father with defendant No.1, as he was around 12 years old at the relevant time. He further deposed that after the said marriage, defendant No.1 lived in the house of his father and even at the time of recording of the statement, she was residing there. Shri Prem Singh, Secretary of Gram Panchayat deposed as PW/5. He proved the fact that as per Ext.PW5/A, which was the Panchayat record pertaining to marriage registration, against Sr.No.23 dated 2.12.1972, Prabhu Ram was entered as married with Rameshwaru, i.e., defendant No.1. 16. In my considered view, whereas, besides the statement of the plaintiff, the statements of PW/2 and PW/3 unequivocally prove the factum of plaintiff being married to Ram Dittu, the statements of PW/4 and PW/5 prove the fact that defendant No.1 was married to Prabhu Ram. In fact, statement of PW/4, who is the son of Prabhu Ram clearly demonstrates that defendant No.1 married Prabhu Ram in the year 1972. Said statement coupled with the statement of PW/5 and also contents of Ext. PW5/A leave no room of doubt that in the year 1972, defendant No.1 was married to Prabhu Ram. In fact, statement of PW/4, who is the son of Prabhu Ram clearly demonstrates that defendant No.1 married Prabhu Ram in the year 1972. Said statement coupled with the statement of PW/5 and also contents of Ext. PW5/A leave no room of doubt that in the year 1972, defendant No.1 was married to Prabhu Ram. Besides this, there is on record Ext.P-12, which is a copy of voter list pertaining to the year 1983, in which the plaintiff is reflected as wife of Ram Dittu. Similarly, in Ext.P- 13, which is also copy of the voter list, defendant No.1 is reflected as wife of Prabhu Ram. Perusal of Ext,P-16 and P-17 also demonstrates that the plaintiff was reflected as wife of Ram Dittu, in the records of Geharwin Co-operative Agricultural Services Society, Ghumarwin of which Ram Dittu was a member and after the death of Ram Dittu, his share stood devolved upon defendant No.1 by way of nomination. 17. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court that it was the plaintiff, who was the wife of Ram Dittu are either not based on true and correct appreciation of evidence on record or said findings have been returned by relying upon inadmissible evidence. In fact, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not substantiate as to how the evidence on the basis of which findings were so returned by the learned Appellate Court was inadmissible evidence. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 18. Now, I will deal with remaining substantial questions of law. “1(a) Whether on the material on record the inference drawn by the Court below in respect of a presumption of marriage of Ramku with Ram Dittu is sustainable and the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records could be assumed to be rebutted? 19. While deciding substantial question of law No.1, this Court has already held that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court that it was plaintiff, who was wife of Ram Dittu and not defendant No.1 are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and the same are not based on inadmissible evidence. 19. While deciding substantial question of law No.1, this Court has already held that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court that it was plaintiff, who was wife of Ram Dittu and not defendant No.1 are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and the same are not based on inadmissible evidence. In this view of the matter, the present substantial question of law is also required to be answered in favour of the plaintiff for the reason that it is not as if learned Appellate Court has drawn wrong inference with respect to presumption of marriage of plaintiff with Ram Dittu because, the conclusion arrived at in this regard by the learned Trial Court is based on substantive evidence on record. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 20. Substantial question of law No.2 is re-produced as under:- 2 Whether the defendants No.2 and 3 who are appellants No.1 and 2 were bonafide purchaser for consideration and the sale affected by the defendant No.1 could be questioned or set aside in the present suit and a decree for possession of half share granted? 21. As far as this substantial question of law is concerned, in my considered view, when defendant No.1 had no right over the suit land, which stood sold by the said defendant in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, then the said sale cannot be protected on the ground that appellants No.1 and 2 are bona fide purchasers. In fact, as I have already mentioned above, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not contested by defendant No.1. It were defendants No.2 and 3 therein, i.e., present appellants No.1 and 2, who contested the suit by taking the stand that the suit land was owned by defendant No.1, who executed valid sale deeds in their favour and further that the plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Ram Dittu. Even otherwise, appellants No.1 and 2 cannot have any grievance against the plaintiff because it was not she, who sold the land to the said appellants. They purchased the land from defendant No.1, who had no title over the same and for that, they can take recourse to such remedies in law as may be available to them against defendant No.1. However, on this plea, the sale entered into by defendant No.1 with defendants No.2 and 3 cannot be protected. They purchased the land from defendant No.1, who had no title over the same and for that, they can take recourse to such remedies in law as may be available to them against defendant No.1. However, on this plea, the sale entered into by defendant No.1 with defendants No.2 and 3 cannot be protected. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 22. Substantial question of law No.3 is re-produced as under:- 3. Whether the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 18 Rule 17A CPC made out and judicial discretion exercise in allowing the additional evidence and reliance thereon is sustainable particularly when in Ex.RX-3, Remeshwari was shown as widow of Prabhu and not Ram Dittu.” 23. Record of the learned Appellate Court demonstrates that the application to lead additional evidence was allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 15.3.2003. A perusal of order dated 15.3.2003 demonstrates that the learned Appellate Court held that in its opinion, the documents, which were being intended to be placed on record, were relevant and necessary for just and appropriate decision of the appeal. Now, the documents which were permitted to be exhibited were (a) Death Certificate of Prabhu Ram; (b) copy of the books of the Gram Panchayat and (c) copy of mutation No.1752 dated 15.5.1997. This order also demonstrates that opportunity was granted to the present appellants to produce evidence to rebut the said documents but it was stated on their behalf before the learned Appellate Court that they did not want to produce any evidence to rebut the documents. Incidentally, order dated 15.3.2003, so passed by the learned Appellate Court on an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, was never assailed by the present appellants during the pendency of the first appeal. Though this Court is not suggesting that this point could not have been raised by the appellants in the present appeal but the conduct of the present appellants is self speaking that they were not aggrieved by the factum of the application so filed before the learned Appellate Court being allowed, because they did not even take time to produce any evidence to rebut the documents on record. Therefore, no illegality was committed by the learned Appellate Court while allowing the said application. This substantial question of law is also answered accordingly. 24. Therefore, no illegality was committed by the learned Appellate Court while allowing the said application. This substantial question of law is also answered accordingly. 24. Before parting, it is relevant to mention that during the pendency of this appeal, application under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the appellants, which stood registered as CMP No.10682 of 2016 alongwith which, certain documents stood appended by the appellants. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not give any cogent explanation as to why these documents were not placed on record by the appellants either before the learned Trial Court or before the learned Appellate Court. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly provides that such an application can be allowed provided (i) the Court from whose decree appeal is preferred has refused to admit such evidence as ought to have been admitted or (ii) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or despite exercise of due diligence could not be produced earlier or (iii) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment. Appellants have failed to demonstrate that either Courts below refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or despite exercise of due diligence, they could not produce on record the documents appended alongwith this application earlier. Besides, in my considered view, the documents already on record are sufficient to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment and the documents which stand appended along with this application so filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code are not required for the pronouncement of the judgment. This application is accordingly rejected. 25. In view of the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.