MALLAPPA MINAPPA PATIL Vs. VENKAJI APPAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship, after dealing with a point not material to this report, continued : ] On behalf of the appellants an application is made to us to allow additional evidence to be produced in appeal. It is alleged that certain important evidence was not produced on the advice of their pleader Mr. Lele. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed impugning the genuineness of the documents on which reliance is placed on behalf of the appellants, and setting forth the grounds against the production of additional evidence. Under Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Civil Procedure Code,- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted [there is no refusal by the lower Court to admit evidence sought to be adduced now in appeal], or (b) the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

(2.) The only question is whether the alleged negligence of the pleader in not producing the evidence which ought to have been produced in the lower Court amounts to a substantial cause. It has been held that the slackness on the part of the litigants and their legal advisers is not a substantial cause within the meaning of Order XLI, Rule 27, Clause (V). See Wali Muhammad V/s. Muhammad Bakhs (1924) I.L.R. 5 Lah. 84, 90.

(3.) We think, therefore, that the application made before us for adducing additional evidence at a late stage does not satisfy the requirements of Order XLI, Rule 27. We, therefore, dismiss the application for the production of additional evidence.