GOKAL Vs. DAULAT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is one of the legal representatives of plaintiff-Malkhan has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the application filed by him under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC during the pendency of the first appeal, was dismissed.

(2.) In his application filed before the lower appellate court, the petitioner had sought to bring on record copy of jamabandi, pedigree-table, application filed by his father Malkhan to DGP, Haryana, photo copy of his statement recorded on 20.8.1998 and other documents, which according to him, were necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties.

(3.) Admittedly, the aforementioned documents were in possession of the petitioner at the time of his evidence before the trial Court. Despite the same, no attempt was made to produce those documents in the first instance or any application later-on filed for leading additional evidence.