JAYANTILAL CHHAGANLAL PANCHAL Vs. ANILABEN CHHAGANLAL PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.Vishwas K.Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondents Nos.3 to 5 have chosen not to appear before this Court pursuant to the issuance of notice, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice of Rule to them. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) BY preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.08.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surat, below the applications at Exhibits 53 and 58, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.36 of 2009, whereby, the said applications for production of additional evidence, have been rejected by a common order.

(3.) MS .Kruti M.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order dated 24.08.2012, passed by the District Court, Surat, does not contain specific reasons for rejecting the applications. Apart from quoting a paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 4 Supreme 585, no other reason has been given by the said Court.