TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 85 of 2013. The Appellants herein had filed an Application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC for permission to file additional documents, which have come into existence after the filing of the Appeal before the State Commission. 2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under: 2.1. The Appellants are the sons of Late Smt. Mrudula K. Ajmera who was the owner and in possession of a plot of land bearing CTS No. 284/38, Military Road, Marol Village, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400059. The Late Smt. Mrudula K. Ajmera constructed a building viz. Tejas Apartments comprising of Ground plus 7 Upper Floors. The flats were sold t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mation of the society; and refund the amount of Rs. 1,98,198/paid by the society members towards water taxes. 2.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order passed by the District Forum, the Appellants filed First Appeal No. 85 of 2013 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. The said Appeal is presently pending before the State Commission. 2.4. On 15.01.2014, the Appellants/Developers filed an Application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC for leading additional evidence before the State Commission in the pending Appeal. The Appellants requested for permission to produce two documents which had come into existence after the filing of the Appeal i.e. (i) Letter dated 08.08.2013 from their Architect to the Executive Eng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h parties, and perused the pleadings on record. 3.1. We have perused the Application filed by the Appellants herein for bringing additional evidence on record, along with the documents sought to be produced in the pending Appeal before the State Commission. These documents have admittedly come into existence after the Appeal was filed before the State Commission. The Appellants therefore, could not have produced the said documents before the District Forum. 3.2. Under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it....