- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.5.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the respondents-defendants for permission to lead additional evidence by producing judgment dated 9.12.2011 passed by learned Civil Court in another litigation between the parties, was permitted to be placed on record. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents against the petitioner, interalia, for injunction restraining the petitioner from raising any construction on the property in dispute.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly the application for additional evidence could not have been allowed as the evidence of the respondents-defendants was closed on 19.12.2011, the date on which the aforesaid judgment was already in existence and was within the knowledge of the respondents, as they were party to that litigation. Secondly, review application filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment was pending and the same has not been decided by the court below. The present suit as well as other suit were being tried by the same court. Though the suit filed by the respondents was decided, but the present suit remained pending. Even the review application is also being kept pending and is not being decided. The proceedings in the present suit are at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments.
(3.) The grievance is that in the suit filed by the respondents, which has been decreed, the judgment of which has been placed on record by way of additional evidence, the learned court below has neither noticed the contentions raised by the petitioner nor report of the Local Commissioner has been referred to.;