AMRIT LAL Vs. MANHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Records received and perused.

(2.) At the time when the appeal came up for motion hearing, it was argued before me by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court and that during the pendency of the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge had allowed the plaintiff to produce additional evidence. It was further submitted that the defendant-appellant was not given any opportunity whatsoever to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff. Accordingly, notice of motion was ordered to be issued and the records were also ordered to be summoned.

(3.) A perusal of the records of the lower Appellate Court would show that after hearing the arguments in the main appeal as also in the application for additional evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 18.3.2002, allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and allowed the plaintiff to produce the additional evidence. It would also be clear that on the same day i.e. 18.3.2002, counsel for the plaintiff had tendered in evidence two documents and had closed the additional evidence. From the order dated 18.3.2002, it would also be clear that thereupon the case was adjourned to 25.3.2002, for the rebuttal evidence of the defendant. On 25.3.2002, no rebuttal evidence to the additional evidence was present and the case was adjourned to 2.4.2002. On 2.4.2002, the defendant examined one witness, in rebuttal to the additional evidence and sought adjournment for further evidence and the case was adjourned to 15.4.2002, on which date, Amrit Lal defendant closed the evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence.