1. BY this application, the applicant/appellant wants to lead additional evidence under Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. to demonstrate that the driving
licence was forged.
2. MR. L.C. Kapoor, learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in a case Natha Singh &
Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1053.
At the very outset, it may be pointed out that this authority refers to Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. and not Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. At any rate,
the principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is that the true test to be applied in dealing with applications for additional evidence is
whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it, without taking into consideration the additional evidence
sought to be adduced.
On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties before the District Forum, we find no difficulty in pronouncing the judgment on such material
and as such, no additional evidence can be permitted. In fact, to us, this application of the applicant/appellant seems to be angrier-thought and
intended to fill up the lacuna at this belated stage, which cannot be permitted. The application is wholly misconceived and is dismissed. Application
dismissed.
