The documents sought to be produced are a companyrespondence between landlord and M s. Godrej Boyce Co. Ltd. indicating negotiation for sale or use of suit premises for a showroom by the Company b modified plan for companystruction of building submitted before the authorities by the landlords in May 1998 after the judgment passed by the trial companyrt wherefrom it appears that the landlord does number wish to demolish the super structure to put up the new companystruction c Public Brochure issued by the landlords inviting donation and funds for companystruction, indicating lack of funds for companystruction with the landlord.
18057 of 2002 P. Naolekar, J Leave granted.
arising out of SLP C No.
During the pendency of the appeal, tenant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code seeking permission to lead additional evidence by way of production of documents, on the ground that the said documents were number available during trial before the trial companyrt and that the said documents were necessary for the just and fair decision on the issues involved in the case.
As per the tenant, document a was number available to the tenant in spite of due diligence and documents b and c are the documents which came into existence after the trial companyrt passed its judgment on 29.1.1999.
The High Court has, while setting aside the order of the first appellate companyrt, held that the tenant defendant appellant in the first appeal had failed to establish that numberwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was number within his knowledge or companyld number, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
Rule 27 of Order 41 provides for the grounds on the availability of which alone, the parties to an appeal may be allowed to produce additional evidence.
