RAMAN B KAPADIA Vs. AMIN YAKUB HABIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the orders passed by the lower Appellate Court rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement as well as the application for production of additional documents. The amendment which was sought to be carried out was to the effect that the plaintiff being the co-owner, having 1/3rd share in the suit property and the other co-owners being not joined as parties, the suit has been filed without joining the necessary parties and is therefore liable to be dismissed. The documents which were sought to be produced were in the form of letters disclosing that the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the property but the co-owner. Challenging the impugned orders, reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and others, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1599.

(3.) THE application for production of documents at the appellate stage has been rejected on the ground that in view of the amendment application having been rejected and since the documents sought to be produced are in support of the pleadings which were sought to be introduced by way of amendment, and the same having been rejected, the question of allowing the petitioner to produce the evidence does not arise.