AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 20.07.2009 passed in Title Suit No.166 of 2004.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. During the trial he filed an application on 09.06.2009 for producing original receipt, original electric bill,
purchase receipt, photo identity card etc. as additional evidence.Â
Previously plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 24.03.2009. When the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence he filed the aforesaid
application for producing additional evidence. No doubt, even after deletion of Rule 17A of Order XVIII CPC the court in appropriate cases may
permit additional evidence provided it is necessary for deciding the issue involved in the suit, however, the party seeking permission to produce
additional evidence must establish its bonafide and that there was sufficient foundation laid in the pleadings. No reason has been disclosed by the
plaintiff why these documents could not be produced during the trial. It appears that order dated 24.03.2009 has also been challenged by the
petitioner, however, on legality of the order dated 24.03.2009, the writ petition is completely bereft of foundational facts. The entire writ petition
proceeds only on challenge to the order dated 20.07.2009.
In the above facts, finding no substance in the writ petition, it is dismissed.Â