JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 the application under Order XLI Rule 27 tendered by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage has been declined.

3. The petitioner by means of the aforesaid application wants to introduce an attesting witness of the Will. The petitioner had full liberty to produce the witness and get him examined before the trial court. The petitioner failed to do so.

4. It is contended by Sri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid witness one Jang Bahadur was unwilling to depose during the trial court proceedings. However he has over a period of time been able to persuade the said Jang Bahadur to appear as witness.

5. Proceedings under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are not intended to enable the parties to supply evidentiary defects at the appellate stage as an after thought. The prerequisites for exercise of power in favour of the petitioner are not satisfied in the case. In this case it is evident that the petitioner had been working on the witness over a long period