HARJEET SINGH Vs. DULARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has moved an application for filing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. He has also filed the affidavit along with the said application and has annexed the certificate issued from the office of R.T.O. indicating therein that no application for transfer of the name of the registered owner had been received back by the office of R.T.O.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant of the basis of the aforesaid documents has tried to submit that the application which has been referred to in the impugned judgment for transfer of ownership of the motorcycle had in fact never been filed by the registered owner -Narendra Pal. I do not find any force in this argument. The appellant had sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence before the Tribunal in order to show that no application for transfer of the ownership had been filed by the registered owner -Narendra Pal before the R.T.O. but he had made no efforts to produce either any official from the office of R.T.O. or any other cogent and reliable evidence in this regard. The application is therefore barred by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 -AA of C.P.C. as no due diligence has been observed by the appellant before the Tribunal in order to produce the adequate evidence in support of his case.

(3.) THUS , the application filed by appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. being without any force is rejected.