Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XLI, r. 27 ---Certified copies of Revenue records---Admitted by lower appellate Court-Ample opportunity for production before trial Court not availed by party---No grounds for delay hinted at before lower appellate Court-Held, party could not be allowed to fill up omissions-Copies rejected.   Where certified copies of jamabandis and khasra girdawaris, showing the adverse nature of the defendant's possession, were not produced by him before the trial Court, and were only tacked on to the petition of appeal before the lower appellate Court, without the slightest hint as to why such copies were produced so late, when the defendant had had ample opportunity to do so in the course of 3 years during which the suit had been pending before the trial Court   Held, that generally additional evidence is admitted in appeal when the party wishing to produce additional evidence was unable, through no fault of his, to produce it in the trial Court; or when the evidence has been taken by the trial Court so imperfectly that the appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment.   The defendant therefore could not be allowed to make up for the weakness of his case and fill up omission in the course of his appeal.   It is no business of the appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the trial Court. The lower appellate Court should not, therefore, have admitted the additional evidence in appeal and on the basis of it upset the finding of the trial Court on the point of adverse possession.   Parsotim Thaker v. Lall Mohar A I R 1931 P C 143 and Allah Ditta v. A. F. Ahmad & Co. P L D 1952 Lah. 582 ref.   JUDGMENT   ABDUL HAMID KHAN, J.----This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession of land measuring 6 kanals 16 marlas comprised of khasra No. 967 situate in village Hoorna Mehra. The plaintiff alleges to have purchased this land on 6th August 1952, by virtue of a sale-deed from Muhammad Akbar owner of the land. The defendants took the plea that they were in adverse possession of the land for more than 12 years. The trial Judge observed that in the…