Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Grievance of the petitioner is that application under Order 41, Rule 27(aa) CPC for producing additional evidence has been declined on merits.
(2.) Eviction Suit No.70 of 1998 was instituted by husband of Abida Khatoon and others. The petitioner was defendant in the suit. The suit was instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2015 and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises within two months. The petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.1 of 2016 against the judgment and decree in Eviction Suit No.70 of 1998. The plaintiffs simultaneously instituted Execution Case No.4 of 2016. The petitioner has pleaded that during pendency of the suit Farooque Nayyar-respondent No. 8 had executed power of attorney in favour of Afroz Ali and on 07.10.2008 Mrs. Abida Khatoon and others executed another power of attorney in favour of Jyotirmoy Choudhary. In the pending appeal an application for taking additional evidence, both the above-mentioned power of attorney, was filed. This application has been dismissed by order dated 24.04.2017.
(3.) Without delving deep into the merits of the matter, it needs to be recorded that in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 8 SCC 148 the Supreme Court has held thus; 49. "An application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the court.";