SHRINIWAS Vs. VIDYAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM (M) 311/2001 is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 96/2000, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC on the ground that the application does not satisfy the test laid down in Order 41 Rule 27.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein wanted to lead additional evidence by bringing oh record certified copies of a compromise deed dated 14/7/1987 entered between the parties in an eviction petition No. E-57/ 78. He also wanted to bring on record a notice dated 8th July, 2000.

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has realised after 14 years that his counsel made a mistake by not putting on record the aforesaid documents which would have bearing on the result of the eviction suit. From an analysis of Order 41 Rule 27, it appears to me that additional evidence in the Appellate Court can be allowed only if the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or, the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or, the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witnesses to be examined to enable it to pronounce Judgment or for any substantial cause. Negligence of counsel is no ground available in Order 41 Rule 27.