SADRUDDIN Vs. PARSHURAM MAHADEO BRAMHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) This petition takes exception to the order dated 27/4/2011 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal whereby application (Exh. 60) filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected.

(3.) The petitioner has suffered a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 46/2003. The said suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. Against the decree dated 27/6/2005, the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Appeal No.45/2005. The said Appeal was posted for hearing on 25/4/2011 on which day, the appellant's Counsel did not appear. However, though the Appeal was dismissed for default, on the application moved by the Counsel for the respondent, the arguments of the respondent were heard on 25/4/2011 and the appeal was posted for judgment on 27/4/2011. On the said day, i.e. 27/4/2011, the appellant, i.e. the petitioner herein had engaged a new Advocate, who, on obtaining no objection from the earlier Advocate, filed his Vakalatnama and an application invoking Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce additional documentary evidence in the form of money order receipts and another application (Exh. 59) for permitting him to advance the arguments in appeal were filed.