Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SONEPAT in Suraj Bhan And Ors vs Niadri & Ors on 21 January, 2026Matching Fragments
1. This appeal commands the earnest attention of this Court, as the appellants-plaintiffs have instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as "RSA") impugning the judgment and decree dated 04.10.1993, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, which affirmed, in their entirety, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 23.11.1992, passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat, had decreed the suit instituted by 1 of 31 the respondent-plaintiff, seeking declaratory relief under the provisions governing pre-emption.
2. As delineated in the pleadings, it is the appellants' case that the respondent-plaintiff approached the learned Trial Court with a claim for possession under the right of pre-emption, premised on the contentions enumerated hereunder:-
"Tek Chand, son of Udho Dass, and Shankar Dass, son of Tek Chand, residents of Sonepat, sold 69 kanals and 16 marlas of land, comprised in Khewat No. 37, as detailed in paragraph 1 of the plaint, to Suraj Bhan, Sarup Singh, and Davinder Singh, the defendant-appellants, by a registered sale deed dated 06.11.1987, for a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The plaintiff- respondent, Smt. Niyadri, claiming herself to be a co-sharer in Khewat No. 37 and also a tenant under the vendors, Tek Chand and Shankar Dass, instituted a suit for pre-emption in respect of the said land. The plaintiff challenged the sale consideration, contending that the actual consideration paid by the vendees to the vendors was Rs. 1,75,000/-, reflecting the true market value of the land. The suit was accordingly filed seeking appropriate relief under the pre-emption provisions."
9. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2502-C of 2025, seeking leave of this Court to adduce additional evidence in terms of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 151 CPC. The application was preferred for the purpose of placing on record subsequent developments, and to bring into evidence the documents marked as Annexures R-1 and R-2, which had come into existence during the pendency of the appeal and could not, despite the exercise of due diligence, have been produced earlier. 9.1. The appellants submitted that the order dated 07.07.1992 passed by the Financial Commissioner in the partition proceedings (Ex. D-2) had been challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 13141 of 1992 by one Rinku, and that the said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 21.04.1993, a certified copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-1. The matter was subsequently remanded to the Financial Commissioner, who, by order dated 20.12.1995, directed remand of the proceedings to the Assistant 5 of 31 Collector, IInd Grade, Sonepat, a certified copy of which is marked as Annexure R-2.
11. I have given my thoughtful and careful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent that the documents sought to be brought on record are judicial records that have 6 of 31 come into existence during the pendency of the present proceedings. As such, they are admissible as additional evidence, provided they bear any material relevance to the decision of this Regular Second Appeal or relate to facts crucial to the determination of the controversy at hand. 11.1. A perusal of the order dated 21.04.1993 (Annexure R-1) passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13141 of 1992 demonstrates that the matter was remanded to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, for a considered examination of the petitioner's plea on merits and for disposal of the civil writ petition. The petitioner in the said writ petition was Rinku, a minor, son of Smt. Santosh, whose share in the suit property was retained jointly with the respondent-applicant and had not been allocated a separate share with concomitant rights of passage or possession. 11.2. The subsequent order dated 20.12.1995 (Ex. R-2) passed by the Financial Commissioner clearly evidences that the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Sonepat, for a limited purpose, strictly for consideration of the petitioner's claim. The relevant portion of the last paragraph of the Financial Commissioner's order, which bears direct relevance to the present proceedings, is reproduced as under:-