JOHN C THOMAS Vs. P M CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is noticed, that the respondent is served and unrepresented.

(2.) THE respondent herein had filed the suit 'against the petitioner for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 28. 2. 1997. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment and decree in R. A. 135/99. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner files an application under Order XLI Rule 27, C. P. C. for additional evidence. The learned, appellate judge has rejected the said application on the ground that it is not permissible at this point of time to lead additional evidence. Annexure-A dated 15. 10. 2001 is the impugned order.

(3.) SRI K. M. Hataraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the normal course, an application for additional evidence will have to ha board along with the main appeal and cannot be disposed of at the threshold.