This application was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the appellant defendant had number adduced any evidence in the trial companyrt.
1997 Supp 3 SCR 664 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The facts are as follows The suit was filed by the respondent questioning certain land acquisi tion proceedings and seeking permanent injunction on the basis that the plaintiff was in possession.
The appellant got impleaded in the trial Court as a defendant.
By that Judg ment, the High Court rejected an application filed by the appellant for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, in a pending first appeal on the ground that the appellant had number led any evidence in the trial companyrt.
The suit was decreed ex parte.
The Court took the above view following a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Md. Saifur Rahman v. State of Assam Others, AIR 1985 Gauhati 107 to the effect that the word additional in Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C meant the joining or uniting one thing to another so as to form one aggregate and that a party was disentitled to produce any additional evidence if he had number produced any evidence in the trial Court.
Appeal was preferred by the appellant to the High Court and two documents were sought to be filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 to show that possession was taken over from the plaintiff long back.
This Civil appeal has been preferred by the Jaipur Development Authority against the Judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.
19 of 1995 dated 10.12.1996.
