NUSLI N. WADIA Vs. BASTION CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Chamber Summons, filed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 43 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), the original Appellant seeks the following relief:

(2.) Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned Senior Counsel representing the Applicants/Original Appellant ("Wadia"), submitted that Wadia seeks to introduce the Joint Development Agreement dtd. 31/12/2005 ("JDA") as additional evidence, which, despite exercising due diligence, could not be produced before the Trial Court. He argued that, had the trial Court considered the JDA, it might have reached a different conclusion regarding issue no 5, which read as follows:

(3.) Mr. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing Respondent ("Bastion"), submitted that, the Appeal should be heard in its entirety alongwith the Chamber Summons, rather than in a piecemeal manner. He argued that the Court must consider the case as a whole to arrive at a proper conclusion. He further submitted that Order 41 Rule 27 requires the Court to determine whether the evidence sought to be introduced would assist in pronouncing judgement or is necessary for any substantial cause.