Heard Shri Sandeep Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the state respondents by the impugned order dated 19 February 2021 the application under order 41 rule 27 tended by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage had been declined the petitioner by means of the aforesaid application wants to introduce an attesting witness of the will. The petitioner had produce the witness and get him examined and for the trial court the petitioner failed to do so it is contended by Shr Sandeep Srivastava plaintiff counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid witnessed one Jung Bahadur was unwilling to depose during the trial court proceeding however he has over a period of time been able to persuade the said Jung Bahadur to appear as witness processing under order 41 rule 27 CPC are not intended to enable the party is to supply evidently defect at the appellate stage as an afterthought the the prerequisites for exercise of power in favour of the petitioner are not satisfied in the case in this case it is evident that the petitioner had been working on the witness over a long period a to depose in his favour
Allowance for time to Tutor or incentive in reluctant and witness is not a good reason for failure to introduce the witness at that stage at time to invoke order 41 rule 27 CPC for such purpose have been up thought there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 19 February 2021 the writ petition is dismissed.
2 September 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment