The rejection of the earlier Memo of the respondent filed for reserving his right to lead his evidence after the closure of the evidence of the defendant does not have any bearing on the request of the former to permit him to examine the attestor on the ground that he was not available at a time when his evidence was recorded. After all, the ultimate endeavour of the Court is to arrive at proper and correct conclusions on the issues arising before it. In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the evidence of an attestor is very crucial. Such an important evidence cannot be shut out only on the ground of delay. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the lower Court permitting the respondent to let in the evidence of one of the attestors of the suit promissory note does not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The rejection of the earlier Memo of the respondent filed for reserving his right to lead his evidence after the closure of the evidence of the defendant does not have any bearing on the request of the former to permit him to examine the attestor on the ground that he was not available at a time when his evidence was recorded. After all, the ultimate endeavour of the Court is to arrive at proper and correct conclusions on the issues arising before it. In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the evidence of an attestor is very crucial. Such an important evidence cannot be shut out only on the ground of delay. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the lower Court permitting the respondent to let in the evidence of one of the attestors of the suit promissory note does not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The rejection of the earlier Memo of the respondent filed for reserving his right to lead his evidence after the closure of the evidence of the defendant does not have any bearing on the request of the former to permit him to examine the attestor on the ground that he was not available at a time when his evidence was recorded. After all, the ultimate endeavour of the Court is to arrive at proper and correct conclusions on the issues arising before it. In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the evidence of an attestor is very crucial. Such an important evidence cannot be shut out only on the ground of delay. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the lower Court permitting the respondent to let in the evidence of one of the attestors of the suit promissory note does not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.