- (1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. Appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to produce additional evidence in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted there is a letter written by the sister of respondent herein which was received by the appellant on 18.2.2002, from perusal of this letter written by Ms. Usha, the own sister of the respondent, it would be evident as to how the respondent has been entangled with other person having illicit relationship. This letter could not be produced because the appellant tried his level best to search it out but it could be traced during the course of trial. The said letter is annexed in this application as Annexure-1.
(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.;