MALLAPPA Vs. SRIPATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri F.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent.

(2.) Application filed by the respondent herein in R.A. No. 2/2012 seeking production of additional evidence by invoking Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (aa) r/w Sec. 151 of CPC came to be allowed by permitting respondent to get himself examined for the limited purpose of proving his relationship with deceased 1st defendant and said order has been called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. F.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (defendant No. 2 in O.S. No. 89/1994 and O.S. No. 2/1993) that trial Court having found that none of the ingredients of Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (aa) is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have allowed the application and that too by permitting the respondent herein namely 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 2/1993 to tender further evidence whereby she has sought for filling up of lacunas or gaps in the evidence of PW -1 who undisputedly was the power of attorney holder of 1st plaintiff before the trial Court. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the writ petition.