THAKUR PRASAD Vs. BENI PRASAD AND 6 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-applicant has approached this Court assailing the orders passed by the courts below rejecting the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking to bring on record certain documents to show that the property for which the suit for eviction has been instituted is 3A/246 instead of 3A/248.

(2.) The courts below rejected the application for the reason that the conditions required under Order 41, Rule 27 for taking additional evidence on record was neither pleaded nor proved.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that when the applicant applied to the Municipal Authority, it is only then the documents were supplied mentioning that the property 3A/248 is the property belonging to some other person, whereas, the property in dispute pertains to 3A/246. The applicant has not sought any amendment in the written statement but only seeks to bring the additional evidence on record. The courts below would record that ingredient of Rule 27 has neither been pleaded nor proved, hence, the additional evidence cannot be taken on record. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon 2008 (3) AWC 2645 (SC) 2645; Eastern Equipment and Sales Ltd Vs. Ing. Yash Kumar Khanna and 2010(1) AWC 598 (SC); Shyam Gopal Bindal and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another .