SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 625

TARUN CHATTERJEE, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
Hakam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. In spite of due service and opportunity to contest the appeal, no one has entered appearance in the appeal or contested the appeal at the time of hearing.

3. These appeals, by way of Special Leave, are filed against a final Judgment and order dated 26th of July 2006 passed in Regular First Appeal Nos. 22, 185 and 217 of 1989 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the First Appeals, filed at the instance of the appellant, were dismissed which were filed for enhancement of compensation for the land acquired by the respondents.

4. Without going into the facts in detail, these appeals can be disposed of on a very short point. It is an admitted position that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short "CODE") for acceptance of additional evidence was filed before the High Court in the aforesaid First Appeals, which were dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. However, the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CODE was not considered by the High Court while disposing of the appeal.

5. That being the position, without going into the legality an



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top