PURANMAL HIRANAND KHETWANI Vs. HARISHKUMAR FATTECHAND MUNOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Bhalerao Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Dewani, Advocate for respondent. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) BY this petition, under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order of District judge-2, Amravati dated 9. 1. 2009 below Ex. 33 in R. C. A. No. 70/2006 by which he rejected the application of the petitioner / appellant, therein for permission to lead additional evidence under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C. P. C.

(3.) IT was the case of the petitioner in the application under order 41 rule 27 of C. P. C. that because of the subsequent event of death of mother of the plaintiff / respondent therein, during the pendency of the appeal, there was availability of some premises in which the mother was living to the plaintiff. Those premises would have satisfied his requirement for which he had claimed possession of leased premises for bonafide occupation. According to him, the plaintiff/ respondent could have started his business in that premises which was initially in possession of his mother at the time of filing of suit, therefore, in view of this subsequent event of death of the mother of the plaintiff/ respondent, said premises as had fallen vacant during the pendency of the appeal, he was not in need of the suit premises for running his shop. According to him, he wanted to bring that fact on record i. e. availability of the premises because of death of the mother of the plaintiff, to run his alleged business. That application was rejected. So the instant petition has been filed.