While deciding the second appeal, however, the High Court had failed to take numberice of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide whether additional evidence companyld be permitted to be admitted into evidence.
The trial companyrt as well as the appellate companyrt and finally the High Court in the second appeal dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs appellants for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 29th of May, 1989, executed by the respondent Nos.
In our view, when an application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.
9 and 10 as well as the companypromise Exhibit No.
4174 of 2002, by which the second appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as the High Court did number find any substantial question of law to be decided in the aforesaid second appeal.
C1 dated 7th of April, 1986 in a suit title Ujagar Singh vs. Puran Singh, But it is an admitted position that before the High Court, the appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for acceptance of additional evidence, namely, documents such as certificate of Military service, voter list of companycerned assembly segment for the year 1982, receipt of house tax 1988 89, payment of chaowkdra of khariff 1986, rabi 1990, rabi 1991, khariff 1992, identity card issued by Election Commission of India, Ration Card etc.
1 to 3 in favour of respondent Nos.
Leave granted.
