SAGAR AUTOMOBILES Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA SUDARSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking the review of the judgment, dated 23.04.2014 passed in RFA No. 1935/2013 on the ground that the I.A. No. 2/2015 filed for production of additional evidence invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was not considered at the time of disposal of the main matter.

(2.) SRI K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vasanth Madhav for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court in the case of HAKAM SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in : AIR 2008 SC 2990 has held that the appellate Court is required to consider the application made for acceptance of additional evidence while disposing of the appeal. Paras 4 and 5 of the said decision read out by him, is as follows:

(3.) HE has also relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of JATINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. MEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in : AIR 2009 SC 354(1), wherein it is held that the dismissal of appeal without deciding the application for additional evidence is improper. He also relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of BONGAIGAON REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD. AND OTHERS v. GIRISH CHANDRA SARMA reported in : (2007) 7 SCC 206, wherein it is held that the plea abandoned before the Single Judge can be raised before the Division Bench; such a plea is not barred by estoppel because writ appeal is in continuation of the original order. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of RAFIQ AND ANOTHER v. MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER reported in to buttress his submission that if a client's chosen advocate has defaulted in bringing certain things to the notice of the Court, that client should not be made to suffer and that too for no fault of his.