Shanthaveeraswamy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

.....evidence. no doubt, it has discretion to allow production of additional evidence, but that discretion is circumscribed by the limitations specified under order 41, rule 27 of the code of civil procedure. additional evidence cannot be allowed to be produced, either for shaking the credit of a witness or for allowing a litigant to patch up the weak parts of his case. similarly, the mere fact that certain evidence is important is not sufficient for adding that evidence in appeal. the appellate court is bound to consider the application under order 41 rule 27 of the cpc only when the appeal is to be decided on merits. further, the case of the appellant does not fall within the conditions prescribed in order 41 rule 27(a) and 27(aa) of the code of civil procedure. it is not the case of the appellant that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, the evidence in question was not within his knowledge or that he could not produce the same or that the court below has refused to admit the said evidence which ought to have been admitted. even rule 27(b) of order 41 of code of civil procedure does not assist the appellant for production of the documents in question. on facts held, this appeal arises out of a decree passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount in question on the basis of a promissory note dated 16.11.1998. ex.p-1 and a consideration receipt dated 16.11.1998, ex. p-2 respectively executed by defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. therefore, the documents produced along with the applications misc.cvl. nos. 14135/2009 and 14673/2009 are not necessary for disposal of the present appeal. applications filed under order 41 rule 27 are rejected. - hence, the election of office bearers for a period of three years under annexure-p is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed......district registrar of societies has declared the office bearers, including respondents 3 and 4, as office bearers of the aforesaid society on various grounds. all the grounds urged in the writ petition need not be traversed in view of the fact that under clause 7 of the bye-laws of the society the term of office of the office bearers is one year and that period had expired long back. 2. the petitioners have already approached the civil court seeking declaratory relief and the civil court declined to grant interim order and the same was affirmed by this court in c.r.p. no. 688/98. annexure-n is followed by annexure-p dated 30-6-1999 by which the list of office-bearers have been approved for the year 1999-2002. hence, petitioners have filed i.a.iii seeking amendment of the writ petition in that regard with an additional prayer to quash annexure-p on the basis of the alleged amendments to the bye-laws. 3. clause 7 of the bye-laws of the society had been amended substituting 3 years in place of 1 year. the said amendment was passed in the meeting held on 5-7-1997 and the same was approved by the registrar on 23-6-1999. the amendment effected was prospective from the date of its approval. hence, the term of office of the office-bearers elected in the election shall not be for a period of 3 years. hence, the election of office bearers for a period of three years under annexure-p is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. therefore, i.a. iii is allowed. 4. the submission of mr. v.s. kulkarni, learned counsel for the 4th respondent that election of office-bearers for a subsequent term is a separate and fresh cause of action and the petitioners cannot seek quashing of annexure-p in this writ petition and they have to file another writ petition, is misconceived. the registrar is not empowered under the act or the rules to approve the list of office-bearers of a particular group when there is rivalry in the society. the petitioners cannot be forced to file.....