Another big question on:- O47 Rule 1 (and thanks to Experts Berman ji and Gupta ji)
Jamai Of Law
(Querist) 02 January 2011
This query is : Resolved
This is extension to my query,
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/please-help-me-to-understand-strict-proof-aspect-in-CPC-O47-R-1-c-r-w-R-4-2-b--143336.asp
Thanks to Berman ji and Gupta ji, their comments has helped to word this query more appropriately.
Can I disect the Rule 1 of O47 as follows in 4 ctegories?
Is there Discovery of 'new'?
Is there Discovery of 'importance'?
And
Was it within the knowledge?
Was it unfeasible to adduce on time?
I want to stress that: 'There is "discovery of Importance" about a perticular evidence which after due diligence, litigant ignored, but hon. judge put a lot of weightage on it and passed order due to lack of evidence. And hence litigant is shocked!!!
And hence litigant wants to adduce it as 'important' evidence which was within the knowledge but couldn't adduce it but wants to adduce it now, as judge finds it important.
Pease explain my doubt.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 03 January 2011
In your case what you say is that eveidence was known to the litigant, it was available with him, but he was not aware of its 'importance' and that he realised or discovered its 'importance' after the decision by the Court since the court stressed on the said evidence (or lack of it).
If there was a piece of information known to the litigant and if he had not adduced it even though it was within his knowledge and possession, then the said evidence ought to have been produced by him. If in his wisdom he chose not to present it, inspite of it being known and available with him during the course of litigation, he would not be permitted to bring in such evidence later on, since he would not be in a position to explain to the court's satisfaction successfully why he did not produce such an evidence earlier.
