LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-289

DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. BHOORI SINGH & OTHERS

Decided On October 29, 2014
DEVENDRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
Bhoori Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against late Kishan Singh. During the pendency of civil suit Late Kishan Singh died and the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 7 came to be substituted in the proceedings as defendants. The suit for specific performance was decreed against the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 7 vide judgment/decree dated 11.12.2012. The petitioner along with respondent nos.2 to 7 have filed Civil Appeal No.14 of 2013 against the judgment/decree passed by the trial court and the said appeal is pending before the court of Addl. District Judge,Court No.6, Aligarh. During the pendency of above appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed for production of additional evidence before the appellate court, which has been rejected by the lower appellate court by means of the impugned order dated 25.8.2014 challenged in the present writ petition. The lower appellate court while rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has specifically recorded that the evidence prayed to be adduced by the petitioner at the appellate stage was very well in his knowledge during the pendency of trial and he has taken a specific stand to this effect in paragraph 12 of the written statement. The lower appellate court has further recorded that the judgment rendered by the trial court has specifically taken note of such a plea of the petitioner while deciding the dispute between the parties.

(3.) From the perusal of the application and the relevant pleadings set out in the written statement, it is clear that the petitioner was aware of such an evidence at the time of filing of the suit and he has taken a specific plea against the respondent no.1 of being a money lender. The findings recorded by the lower appellate court for rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. cannot be interfered with inasmuch as the findings do not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever.