Counsel for the petitioners contended that both grounds recorded by the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs' application for additional evidence are erroneous and illegal. It was pointed out that trial court has observed that plaintiffs were granted 21 opportunities for their evidence whereas in fact they were granted only 8 opportunities for their evidence whereas the remaining dates of hearing were fixed for arguments on stay application. It is also submitted that the trial court has observed that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') for allowing additional evidence, although additional evidence may be allowed by court in appropriate case in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC. Both these contentions are not countered by counsel for contesting respondent No.1. However, counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the plaintiffs had themselves closed their evidence after availing 8 opportunities for their evidence and the proposed additional evidence was in their knowledge and, therefore, there is no ground for permitting the same.
