Allahabad High Court
Smt. Geeta Devi And Another vs Additional District Judge / Special ... on 17 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2552
Author: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16055 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta Devi And Another Respondent :- Additional District Judge / Special Judge-2, Gorakhpur And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Misra Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard Sri H.N. Misra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Abhishek Misra, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant-petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order dated 30.09.2019 in Rent Revision No.36 of 2016 (Krishna Devi Vs. Rajendra Kumar), passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur, whereby the application 30 C under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. filed by the tenant-petitioner for taking as additional evidence paper No.49 C and 50 C, has been rejected.
3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the disputed house was purchased by Smt. Premlata Devi, W/o Sri Krishn Mohan by a registered sale deed dated 25.10.1969. She raised new construction after getting the map passed on 25.05.1970 from the Nagar Palika Gorakhpur. A portion of the said house was let out for residential purpose by Smt. Premlata Devi to the original tenant Bansi Lal under a rent agreement dated 31.03.1971. It appears that subsequently, the original tenant made alteration in the tenanted portion and converted it for commercial use and started running a shop. After the death of the original landlady and her husband Krishn Mohan, the house in question was inherited by the plaintiff-respondent Dr. Rajendera Kumar Agarwal, who after determining the tenancy by notice to the tenant, filed SCC Suit No.25 of 2001 (Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Bansi Lal). During pedency of the suit the tenant Bansi Lal died and he was succeeded by his six heirs and legal representatives.
4. The SCC suit was filed mainly on two grounds, firstly, default in payment of rent and, secondly, that the tenant without permission in writing of the landlord made construction/structural alteration in the building which diminished its value, utility and disfigured it and started using it for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the building. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19.10.2016, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (S.D.), Gorakhpur. The Judge Small Cause Court rejected the plea of the plaintiff-landlord regarding default in payment of rent by the tenant but accepted the grounds of structural alteration by the tenant without written permission and use of the tenanted premises for commercial purpose while the tenancy was for residential purpose. Aggrieved with this judgment, the tenant-petitioner filed SCC Revision No.36 of 2016 (Krishna Devi Vs. Rajendra Kumar) in which final arguments had commenced and the revision was argued on 16.09.2019 at length and thereafter, it was fixed for rest of the arguments. Instead of concluding the arguments, the tenant-petitioners filed an application 30 C on 24.09.2019 under Order XLI Rule 27 CP.C. Which is reproduced below:-
"एनेक्चर-3 न्यायालय श्रीमान् अपर जिला जज (भ्रष्टाचार निवारण) कोर्ट नं० 2 गोरखपुर लघुवाद निगरानी संख्या 36/2016 दरखास्त अन्तर्गत आदेश 41 नियम 27 सी०पी०सी० सपठित धारा 151 सी०पी०सी० उपरोक्त लघुवाद निगरानी में निवेदन है कि बरवक्त तैम्यारी बहस प्रार्थी के वर्तमान अधिवक्ता द्वारा पिछली तारीख पेशी पर पत्रावली को देखा गया तो पता चला कि प्रार्थी द्वारा फर्द सबूत कागज संख्या 49 ग से जो कागजात कागज संख्या 50/ग अधीनस्थ न्यायालय में दाखिल किये गये हैं। उक्त सभी प्रपत्र फोटो कापी के रूप में है। जिसके कारण प्रार्थी के वर्तमान अधिवक्ता द्वारा प्रार्थी से उसकी असल की मांग की गयी। चूंकी प्रार्थी कायदा कानून से अनभिज्ञ व्यक्ति है और अधीनस्थ न्यायालय में मुकदमें की पैरवी प्रार्थी के बाबा ( ग्रेन्ड फादर) वंशी लाल गुप्ता करते थे और सम्पूर्ण कागजात उन्हीं के पास थे बाद वफात वंशीलाल गुप्ता प्रार्थी अधीनस्थ न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रतिस्थापित हुए लेकिन कानूनी राय न मिलने के कारण उपरोक्त किराये को जमा शुदा चालान की असल प्रति अधीनस्थ न्यायालय के समक्ष दाखिल नहीं कर सके। प्रार्थी के वर्तमान अधिवक्ता द्वारा उपरोक्त चालान की असल प्रति मांगने पर प्रार्थी द्वारा घर में रखे कागजातों को तलाशने पर उक्त उपरोक्त चालान के अलावे कुछ अहम सबूत कागजात जो स्वीकृत रूप से मुकदमा लघुवाद के वादी के पिता शंभू प्रसाद अग्रवाल द्वारा जारी किराये को रसीद तथा सेल्स टैक्स विभाग द्वारा निर्गत नोटिस एवं श्रम विभाग द्वारा निर्गत प्रमाण पत्र की असल प्रतिलिपि प्राप्त हुई। जिसे प्रार्थी ने अपने वर्तमान अधिवक्ता को दिखाया तो प्रार्थी के वर्तमान अधिवक्ता ने बताया कि उपरोक्त समस्त संलग्न सबूत कागजात निगरानी हाजा के पूर्ण प्रभावी न्याय निर्णयन हेतु आवश्यक सबूत कागजात है। जिनका दाखिला न्याय हित में आवश्यक है। चूंकि संलग्न सबूत कागजात कानूनी राय न मिलने एवं प्रार्थीगण के सम्यक तत्परता के बावजूद जानकारी न होने के कारण अधीनस्थ न्यायालय के समक्ष मुकदमा लघुवाद में दाखिल नहीं किये जा सके थे। ऐसी स्थिति में संलग्न सबूत कागजात को अंगीकृत किया जाना न्यायोचित एवं न्याय संगत है। अन्यथा निगरानीकर्ता की अपूर्णीय क्षति होगी।
अतः प्रार्थना है कि सूची कागजात से संलग्न सबूत कागजातों को साक्ष्य में अंगीकृत किये जाने का आदेश देने की कृपा करें।
प्रार्थी/राहुल"
5. The aforesaid application 30 C has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.09.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), Court No.2, Gorakhpur. Aggrieved with this order, the tenant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submission:-
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during preparation of the case the counsel advised to file in additional evidence paper No.49 Ga and 50 Ga which was not within the knowledge of the revisionist-petitioner despite due to diligence and as such it could not be filed before the Trial Court in SCC Suit No.25 of 2001. He submits that court below has committed a manifest error of law to reject the application. In support of his submissions he relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Kailashwati Devi (Smt.) (1997)7 SCC 297, Union of India Vs. K.V. Lakshman and others (2016) 13 SCC 124, another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 6.5.2019 in Civil Appeal No.4628 of 2019 Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr. Vs. M/s. Tejas Co-operative Housing Society.
Discussion & Findings:
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the tenant-petitioner.
8. Perusal of the application 30 C under Order XLI Rule 27 filed by the tenant-petitioner shows that it does not contain any averment as to why the additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy involved in the appeal. The main controversy involved in the revision is with regard to written permission of the landlord to the tenant for making structural alteration in the building and use of the tenanted premises for purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out.
9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today by the tenant-petitioner stating that the copies of additional evidence filed before the revisional court is being filed as Annexure SA-1. Perusal of SA-1 shows that it is copies of five tenders of deposit of rent in SCC Suit No.25 of 2001 and photostat copies of two alleged rent receipts dated 05.04.1992 and 17.12.1991 and a photostat copy of some notice of the Sales Tax Department and a photostat copy of some certificate of labour department in the name of M/s. V.K. Enterprises.
10. The suit was contested by the tenant for about 16 years. There is no averment in the application 30 C that why the aforesaid alleged additional evidence is necessary to decide the real controversy involved in the revision. The application 30 C was filed by the tenant-petitioner allegedly on mere advise of the counsel and that too after arguments started. Thus, apart from the fact the application was frivolous and does not comply with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, it also appears that application was filed merely to delay the disposal of the revision.
10. The judgment in the case of Jaipur Development Authority (supra) relied by learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has no application on the facts of the present case inasmuch as facts in that case were that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff on the allegation of possession which was decreed ex-party and the defendant in appeal sought to file two documents to show that the possession was taken over from the plaintiff long back. In these circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was wrongly rejected by the High Court.
11. The judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Lakshman(supra) relied by learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner also does not support the case of the petitioner rather law laid down therein is against him. The facts of that case were that the Union of India filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the suit property which was dismissed by the trial court as barred by limitation and also on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title over the suit land. In first appeal the plaintiffs - Union of India filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for taking in additional evidence the documents issued by the State Land Revenue Department in relation to the suit land. That application was rejected and the appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The judgment in the case of Jiten K. Ajmera (supra) relied by learned counsel for petitioner is also distinguishable on facts as evident from paragraph 2.4 and paragraph 3.3 of the said judgment. Facts in that case were that the appellant of that case requested for permission to produce two documents which had come into existence after filing of the appeal. The plaintiff - Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court questioning the rejection of application and dismissal of appeal in limine. On these facts Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
32) This takes us to the next question in relation to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. In our considered view, the High Court committed another error when it rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. This application, in our opinion, should have been allowed for more than one reason.
33) First, there was no one to oppose the application. In other words, the respondents were neither served with the notice of appeal and nor served with the application and hence they did not oppose the application. Second, the appellant averred in the application as to why they could not file the additional evidence earlier in civil suit and why there was delay on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate stage. Third, the averments in the application were supported with an affidavit, which remained un-rebutted. Fourth, the application also contained necessary averment as to why the additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy involved in appeal. Fifth, the additional evidence being in the nature of public documents and pertained to suit land, the same should have been taken on record and lastly, the appellant being the Union of India was entitled to legitimately claim more indulgence in such procedural matters due to their peculiar set up and way of working.
(emphasis supplied by me)
12. Thus, all the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case.
13. As already observed above, the application of the tenant petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC does not contain necessary averment as to why the additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy involved in the revision. In Union of India Vs. K.V. Lakshman (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that such averment is necessary for allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. This legal position is also reflected from bare reading of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC which is reproduced below:-
"27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if--
(a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, The Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission."
14. Perusal of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. shows that it prohibits the parties to an appeal to adduce additional evidence either oral or documentary at the Appellate Court. However, it provides three exceptions in which the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. These exceptions are provided in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of Order XLI Rule 27(1) C.P.C.
15. In the case Malyalam Plantations Ltd. vs. State of Kerla, (2010) 13 SCC 487, (Para-17), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. and held as under:-
"It is equally well-settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae or to patch up the weak points in the case. Adducing additional evidence is in the interest of justice. Evidence relating to subsequent happening or events which are relevant for disposal of the appeal, however, it is not open to any party, at the stage of appeal, to make fresh allegations and call upon the other side to admit or deny the same. Any such attempt is contrary to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Additional evidence cannot be permitted at the Appellate stage in order to enable other party to remove certain lacunae present in that case."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
16. In the case of Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin, (2010) 8 SCC 148, (Paras-36 to 41), Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles of Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. laid down by it in its earlier decisions in the case of K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526; The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1008; Soonda Ram & Anr. v. Rameshwaralal & Anr., (1975) 3 SCC 698: AIR 1975 SC 479; Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 601 : AIR 1979 SC 553, Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S. K. Mohammed & Ors. v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co., AIR 1978 SC 798, State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101 and held as under:
"36. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself.
37. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment.
38. Under Order XLI , Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence.
39. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non- production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal.
40. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal.
41. The words "for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g., when evidence has been taken by the lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
18. In the case of Shri Kishore and another vs. Roop Kishore, 2006 (62) ALR 414, this Court relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner AIR 1976 SC 1053 and held that it is only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that the appellate court may, on its own, direct production of any document or witness only to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. No substantial cause has been indicated before this Court. The true test in such a case would be as to whether the appellate court is able to pronounce the judgment on the materials before it, without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. The parties cannot be given opportunity to better the case or adduce additional evidence only to fill up gaps left out in the case before the trial court , or else this would be a never ending process, and the parties would continue to move applications for adducing additional evidence at every stage of the proceedings.
19. In the case of Shiv Karan and others vs. Special Judge, E.C. Act and another, 2011 (1) JCLR 864 (All) (LB), Lucknow Bench of this Court considered rejection of application of a case where the suit was filed in the year 1997 and the appeal against the order of the Trial Court was filed in the year 2009 and, thereafter, an application was filed to receive additional evidence seeking examination of marginal witnesses, this Court upheld the rejection of the application by the Appellate Court on the ground that the application so moved was not justified as giving an opportunity at that stage could mean to allow for filling up lacunae.
20. In the case of Satish Kumar Gupta etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, 2017 (2) JCLR 36 (SC)., Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is clear that neither the Trial Court has refused to receive the evidence nor it could be said that the evidence sought to be adduced was not available despite the exercise of due diligence nor it could be held to be necessary to pronounce the judgment. Additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill-in the lacunae or to patch-up the weak points in the case. There was no ground for remand in these circumstances.
21. In the case of Smt. Ganga Devi and another vs. Bhagwan Das and others, 2014 (106) ALR 295, similar principles were reiterated.
22. In MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4904 of 2017 Prahlad And 7 Others Vs. Chandra Bhan And 6 Others decided on 07.09.2017, this Court held as under:-
"22. In view of the above discussion, I find that the general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and generaly cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the Court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. Under Order XLI , Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non- production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document, do not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal."
23. In Satya Narayan Vs. Smt. Mohini Devi And Another in MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8925 of 2017, decided on 03.01.2018, this Court has taken similar view.
24. Thus, it is settled law that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court. It is also equally well-settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae or to patch up the weak points in the case. However, an exception is provided in Order XLI Rule 27 CPC that additional evidence may be produced in the Appellate Court if the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. must contain necessary averment as to why additional evidence is necessary to decide the real controversy involved in the Appeal or revision. In the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahimuddin and another 2012(8)SCC 148 (paras 36 to 41) Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "for any other substantial cause" and held that it must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply. It was further held that it is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court. In the absence of satisfactory reasons for non- production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be permitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence. A party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document, does not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. In Shri Kishore and another vs. Roop Kishore, 2006 (62) ALR 414 this Court relied upon a judgmnet of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner AIR 1976 SC 1053 and held that it is only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that the appellate court may, on its own, direct production of any document or witness only to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the Court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment.
24. Applying the principles of law laid down in the above referred judgments of this Court and of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts of the present case as discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.10.2019/vkg