CHANGDEV RAMBHAU GHUMARE Vs. VIJAY RAJARAM VIDHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Naik the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Malwankar h/f Mr. Pawar the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. The learned APP appears for the respondent no.2-State.

(2.) AS these three petitions raise a common grievance, namely, rejection of an application filed for additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. by the Lower Appellate Court, hence they are being decided by a common order.

(3.) IN the pending appeals, the petitioner-appellant filed an application at Exh.18 for producing additional evidence of the original landowners i.e. Shri Pandit Gangadhar Badade and Shri Bhagwan Malhari Lilke. The appellant contended in the said application that there was no transaction between the complainant and the owners of the land that he had purchased in the year 2004 and there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against which the dishonored chouse were issued by him and drawn in favour of the complainant. The complainant on the ground opposed said application that the application was filed with an intention to protract the litigation and delay the final hearing of the appeals. It was further pointed out that applications after applications were filed to avoid payments and the appellant was deliberately causing delay in the final hearing of the appeals.