Avtar Singh vs Bhavkaran Singh And Ors.

1
CR-7224-2026 - -


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

141

CR-7224-2026
Date of decision : 12.11.2026


Avtar Singh

...... Petitioner
V/S

Bhavkaran Singh and Ors.

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

Present: Mr. Kishore Bhardwaj, Advocate and
Ms. Tamanna Banwala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

Mr. Satbir Singh Katnoria, Advocate

for respondent No.2.


AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner/defendant No.1 in the main case filed present civil
revision against impugned order dated 07.09.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by
learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar whereby the application filed by
respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been wrongly

allowed, by ignoring the principles laid down in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.1 in the main case
pointed out that Bhavkaran Singh had filed suit for cancellation of sale deeds,
mutation along with joint possession of the land and permanent injunction as
detailed in the plaint (Annexure P-3). The civil suit was contested by
petitioner/defendant No.1 by filing his written statement (Annexure P-4).
During the pendency of that civil suit, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CR-7224-2026 - -


CPC was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure P-4/A). However,
the said civil suit was finally dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
11.07.2019 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved of this judgment, plaintiff
Bhavkaran Singh filed Civil Appeal No.344/2019 in which he filed application
under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC (Annexure P-6) and another application under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (Annexure P-7). The application seeking permission to
lead additional evidence was contested by present petitioner by filing reply
(Annexure P-8). Thereafter another application was filed under Order 41 Rule
27 (aa) CPC seeking permission to lead additional evidence (Annexure P-11).
The reply to said application is Annexure P-12. Both applications filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were disposed of by passing impugned order dated
07.09.2026 (Annexure P-1). The application seeking permission to place on
record the statements of Avtar Singh and Jang Singh recorded in criminal case
(Annexure P-7) was declined whereas the second application seeking
permission to examine the plaintiff as well as to examine handwriting and
finger print expert witness (Annexure P-11) was allowed.
3. It is further argued that the impugned order dated 07.09.2026
(Annexure P-1) is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. To support
his arguments learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1374 of 2008 titled “Union
of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another” 2012(8) SCC 148. Relevant paras
No.25, 27 and 28 runs as under:-
“25. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not
travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any
evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41, Rule 27
Civil Procedure Code enables the Appellate Court to take
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CR-7224-2026 - -


additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate
Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the
conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are
not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus,
provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record,
the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment………
26. XXX XXX XXX
27. Under Order 41, Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, the
appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced
and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said
Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to
obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This
provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh
evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence
it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the
appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of
pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is
only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate
Court is empowered to admit additional evidence.
28. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement
the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court.
Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-
production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence
should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in
the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to
give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample
opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but
failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in
appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR
1957 Supreme Court 912; and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam &
Ors., AIR 1969 Supreme Court 101) .”
Thus provision under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is exception to the
general rule. In routine the parties cannot lead additional evidence at the
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CR-7224-2026 - -


appellate stage and this provision can be invoked as per the specific exceptions
detailed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The plaintiff could not establish any
exceptional circumstances under which he could not step into the witness box
nor he could explain as to why earlier the admitted signatures/thumb marks as
well as the disputed signatures/thumb marks were not got compared from the
original document. The civil suit remained pending for about five years,
thereafter appeal was filed and application seeking permission to lead
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (Annexure P-11) was filed in
February 2026. The long delay has remained unexplained. The
respondent/plaintiff was required to lead this evidence when the case was fixed
for their evidence. Now at this belated stage he cannot be permitted to fill up
the lacunas in the present case. The learned First Appellate Court without
considering the aforesaid factual position wrongly allowed the application to
lead additional evidence at the stage of first appeal vide impugned order dated
07.09.2026 (Annexure P-1) and the same is liable to be set aside by accepting
present civil revision.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argued that the
facts of the case and the evidence which was led before the trial Court was
taken into account for the disposal of application filed by the
respondent/plaintiff seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The
respondent No.1/plaintiff was citizen of Singapore. He never came to India to
execute the sale deeds which are challenged by the plaintiff by filing Civil Suit
No.161 dated 25.09.2014 titled “Bhavkaran Singh vs. Avtar Singh and Others” .
At the time of examining witness in defence, this fact was conceded that it was
Jagwinder Singh who by way of impersonation executed the disputed sale
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CR-7224-2026 - -


deeds. Under unavoidable circumstances, earlier Bhavkaran Singh could not
step into the witness box nor the disputed signatures could be compared with
original admitted signatures. The learned trial Court by taking hyper technical
view dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, as a result the plaintiff had to file
civil appeal which is pending for adjudication. During the pendency of said
appeal, he filed two application seeking permission to lead additional evidence
which are disposed of by passing detailed order dated 07.09.2026 (Annexure P-
1). The First Appellate Court rightly considered the facts and surrounding
circumstances of the case and rightly came to the conclusion to allow the
applications seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The said evidence
will enable the First Appellate Court to decide the case on merits after
considering the entire evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned order dated
07.09.2026 (Annexure P-1) does not require any interference and it is submitted
that civil revision preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.1 may kindly be
dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record
carefully. The civil suit filed by Bhavkaran Singh through his General Power
of Attorney Dilawar Singh against Avtar Singh and Others was dismissed vide
judgment dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-5). The copy of plaint is Annexure P-
3. The plaintiff had challenged three sale deeds executed in favour of
defendants No.1 to 3 as well as sought cancellation of mutations sanctioned
thereon with further relief of joint possession and permanent injunction as
detailed therein. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment, plaintiff filed Civil
Appeal No.344/2019 titled “Bhavkaran Singh vs. Avtar Singh and Others”
which is pending for adjudication. It is matter of record that Bhavkaran Singh
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CR-7224-2026 - -


appellant/plaintiff had filed two applications seeking permission to lead
additional evidence (Annexures P-7 and P-11) which were contested by the
respondent/petitioner in this case and the same were disposed of by passing
common order dated 07.09.2026 (Annexure P-1). The first application seeking
permission to lead additional evidence (Annexure P-7) was declined whereas
the second application seeking permission to lead additional evidence
(Annexure P-11) was allowed. As per this order, the Appellate Court passed
detailed order directing the trial Court/Successor Court to record additional
evidence with the terms and conditions as detailed in para No.14 of the
impugned order. The application seeking permission to lead additional
evidence has been filed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which
runs as under:-
“27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.— (1)
The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional
evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court.
But if —
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has
refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence,
establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such
evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the
exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the
decree appealed against was passed, or]
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced
or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment,
or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow
such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be
examined.
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CR-7224-2026 - -


(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by
an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its
admission .”
6. There is no dispute about it that Bhavkaran Singh plaintiff could
have appeared before the trial Court at appropriate stage and he was fully aware
of the evidence which was required to be led and he could have produced the
evidence at that point of time. It cannot be ignored that Bhavkaran Singh was
settled in Singapore and he filed the civil suit through his General Power of
Attorney Dilawar Singh. Under these circumstances, Bhavkaran Singh could
not step into the witness box. In the case in hand, handwriting and finger print
expert was also examined, however the specimen signatures/thumb impressions
were not obtained from the original document and as a result, both these things
were seriously viewed by the trial Court and finally, the suit filed by the
plaintiff was dismissed. Now by way of additional evidence Bhavkaran Singh
wants to step into the witness box and further wants to examine handwriting
and finger print expert by relying upon the original admitted signatures/thumb
impressions. While passing the impugned order dated 07.09.2026 (Annexure
P-1), the trial Court has considered the testimony of Avtar Singh DW-1 and
Kulwinder Singh DW-3 where they allegedly conceded that Jagwinder Singh
impersonated as Bhavkaran Singh at the time of execution of disputed sale
deeds. It is the case of Bhavkaran Singh appellant/plaintiff that he was not in
India when the disputed sale deeds were executed. The testimony of Bhavkaran
Singh as well as handwriting and finger print expert is material for proper
adjudication of the case. The First Appellate Court can call for additional
evidence, if it is required to enable the court for proper final adjudication of the
case.
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CR-7224-2026 - -


Therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated
07.09.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS
Nagar and the same is accordingly upheld. The civil revision filed by

petitioner/defendant No.1 in the main case is accordingly declined.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of

accordingly as well.
(AMARJOT BHATTI )
JUDGE

12.11.2026.
Sunil Devi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.13 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document