CHOTEE BEE AND ANOTHER Vs. SUJANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the appellants in A.S.No.110 of 2009. It is a suit for specific performance based on contract for sale filed by revision respondent. The 2nd revision petitioner is stated to be the legal representative of 1st petitioner since died. There is nothing to that effect of filing any memo of recording the factum of 1st petitioner died and 2nd petitioner is the only legal representative to bring on record. Thereby it is left open to the lower appellate court for nothing more required for purpose of the revision to refer or discuss on this aspect.

(2.) The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance and aggrieved thereby the defendants preferred the appeal. It is pending the appeal, the plaintiff/appeal respondent filed I.A.No.1036 of 2011, which is an application to receive as additional evidence by sending the suit sale agreement to an expert which contains the thumb impression of the 1st defendant as he disputes even proved otherwise. The application is accompanied by another application in I.A.No.773 of 2010 to reopen the evidence in the appeal pending.

(3.) The applications were opposed by the appellants as respondents to the applications stating that during trial the plaintiff filed one application to send the document to expert and same was not pressed and earlier also in the appeal I.A.No.774 of 2010 to send the document to expert and to receive the same and that was also not pressed before filing I.A.No.1036 of 2011 and the conduct no way permits much less with any entitlement, for lack of due diligence for earlier non-production of the purported additional evidence by seeking to send the document to expert to compare the thumb impression and to receive opinion pursuant thereto for the alleged additional evidence purpose.