AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abdul Hadi, J.—Respondents 2 and 3 in A.S.No. 84 of 1994 and in I.A.No. 223 of 1996 in the said appeal have filed this civil revision
petition against the order allowing the said I.A.No. 223 of 1996, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for reception of a document as
additional evidence. The said documents is none other then the original of Ex.B-16, already marked in the suit, which is a certified copy of the said
original.
Despite the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to see any error of jurisdiction, which could come under the main part
of Section 115 of C.P.C. or any irreparable injury, which is spoken to in the proviso thereto. First of all it is a moot point whether the abovesaid
original document could be considered as any new document or ""additional evidence"", warranting invoking Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. in the light
of the fact that already the certified copy thereof had been marked as Ex.B.16 in the suit. The relevant averment in the affidavit to the I.A. also says
thus:-
I am not seeking to adduce evidence regarding a totally new document. I only seek to produce the original of Ex.B-16 for proper appreciation
and just decision.
No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on M. Ayyasami and Anr. v. S.P. Ganesan and Anr., 1994 2 L.W. 376. But I do not
think that the said decision will have any application to the present case in the light of what has been stated above. In view of the fact that there is
no error of jurisdiction or the above referred to irreparable injury the civil revision petition is not admitted, but dismissed. No costs, However, the
lower appellate court has to consider the relevancy of the above said document at the time of marking of the said document at hearing of the
appeal. C.M.P.No. 15226 of 1996 is dismissed as no further order is necessary.