AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner is a defendant in the suit. His application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been rejected on the ground that it has been filed after the issues have been framed and the evidence of the parties is in the process of recording and that no reason for the delay in filing the said documents have been assigned. The revision preferred against the same has already been dismissed.
A perusal of the application which has been filed by the petitioner is annexure 3. It reveals that the petitioner has simply made an application for taking on record the additional evidence but without assigning any reason whatsoever. It has not been stated as to why the said papers could not be filed earlier or as to when the said papers came to the knowledge of the petitioner.
In view of the above as the petitioner does not satisfy the essential conditions for taking on record the documents as additional evidence as laid down under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition.
It is accordingly dismissed.