TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted. 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. 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 Procedur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The suit was decreed ex-parte. 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 application was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the appellant-defendant had not adduced any evidence in the trial court. It is this order that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b)................................................................... the appellate court may allow such evidence to be produced or witness to be examined. (2)................................................................ The intention of the sub-rule, in our view, is that a party who, for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has produced some evidence in the trial court and one who has adduced no evidence in the trial court. All that is required is that the conditions mentioned in the body of the sub- rule must be proved to exist. It is not permissible to restrict the sub- clause (aa) for the benefit of only those who have adduced some evidence in the trial Court. The view taken by the Gauhati High Court is not the....