SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) It appears that although a caveat was initially lodged, the same is expired in the meantime. Despite that, the learned advocate for the petitioners fairly sought to serve notice on the said learned advocate, but the same was refused by the said learned advocate, which is apparent from the affidavit of service filed today in Court. Let the said affidavit of service be kept on record.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioners, who are the judgment-debtors in a suit for eviction, is that the petitioners' application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the appellate court by dint of the impugned order dated June 28, 2018. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ladies, who are not aware of the nitty-gritties of law and, as such, dependent on the action of their learned advocate in the court below. It is alleged that the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in the trial court did not complete the cross-examination of P.W. 1, for which such cross-examination was sought to be completed by way of filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code at the appellate stage. It is further submitted that the litigants cannot bear the burden of the mistake committed by their learned advocate. Learned advocate for the petitioners, by placing reliance on Order XLI Rule 27(aa) of the Code, submits that despite due diligence, the petitioners were not aware of the necessity of completion of such cross-examination and, as such, ought to have been given an opportunity by the appellate court to do so.
(3.) It appears from the appellate court's order that the appellate court considered the merits of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code and came to the finding that the nature of evidence sought to be adduced, that is, cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, could not come within the ambit of "additional evidence" as contemplated under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code.;