BIJESH KUMAR SAHU Vs. ASHA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) Admittedly the said letter is received by the appellant on 18.2.2002 and the appellant has filed the Title Suit in concerned Court in the year 2003 i.e. Matrimonial Title Suit No. 26 of 2003. It is clear from the submission of the appellant that before filing of the aforesaid suit, the appellant had received the said letter (Annexure-1) and it is unbelievable that the appellant could not trace out the said letter during the whole trial period. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said documentary evidence was not within his knowledge or he could not receive due to which he could not exhibit the said document in the suit. The basic principle of admission of additional evidence is that the person seeking the admission of additional evidence should be able to establish that with the best efforts such additional evidence could not have been adduced at the first instance. The provision of Order 41 Rule 27 does not authorise the party to fill up any lacunae or gap in evidence so as to patchup the weak points in the case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly the I.A. No. 1876 of 2004 is dismissed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent.