JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow, by which the application for taking additional evidences during pendency of the appeal, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the voter list which was obtained by him after the decision of the case.? Therefore, it was a necessary evidence to be adduced during pendency of the appeal.?? It has also been submitted that the family members of the opposite party no.2 are residing separately, therefore, the opposite party no.2 has no bonafide need to get vacated the said house.? It has also been submitted the opposite party no.2 intends to sell the property in dispute. 4. The application was filed by the appellant during pendency of the appeal and learned court below has come to the conclusion that the appellant had full opportunity to produce such documents in the lower court. As far as the submission of sale-deed is concerned, the sale-deed was executed in the year 2006 and the P.A.case was instituted on 10.09.2012, which was decided on 31.07.2013. 5. Learned court below has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and has come to the conclusion that the appellant could have filed the said documents during pendency of the case and there is no sufficient ground to take these documents on record. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned order of learned court below who has considered all aspects of the matter. It appears that the appellant himself wants to delay the decision of the appeal. 7. The writ petition is misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.