Vijender Singh Malik, J. - (1.) This is plaintiff's revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P/1) vide which learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code for permission to lead additional evidence.
(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 93,176.26 against the defendants. A credit facility was allowed to the defendants on 16.11.1981 on the defendants' executing various documents including a guarantee agreement by respondent No.5. As the defendants failed to adhere to the financial discipline and failed to keep the account regular, the suit was filed after giving a legal notice to the defendants. The said suit has been dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2004 for the twin reasons that the plaintiff failed to bring on record the statement of account duly attested under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, (for short "the Act") and that the suit has been filed beyond limitation.
(3.) In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, it filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code for permission to lead additional evidence. It is claimed that some balance confirmation letters and demand promissory note as also the statement of account were although placed on the file, but could not be proved by the plaintiff. It was claimed that documents were also a part of the record and nothing is to be prepared by the plaintiff, which could attract the criticism of fabrication subsequently.;