Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Q: Key Points

Appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. (!) [1000754280003][1000754280004] The appellate court may permit additional evidence in exceptional circumstances, where it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.[IMPORTANT POINT] (!) [1000754280003][1000754280004] Admissibility does not depend on relevancy to the issue, or whether the applicant had an opportunity to adduce it earlier, but on whether the appellate court needs it for judgment or substantial cause.[IMPORTANT POINT][1000754280003] General principle: appellate court should not travel outside lower court record, but Order 41 Rule 27 provides exception if evidence removes doubt, has direct bearing on main issue, and justice requires it. (!) [1000754280003] Even after permission, applicant must prove documents' existence, authenticity, genuineness, and contents per law.[1000754280004][1000754280005][1000754280006]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 216

B. V. NAGARATHNA, M. R. SHAH
Sanjay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. (!) [1000754280003][1000754280004]

The appellate court may permit additional evidence in exceptional circumstances, where it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.[IMPORTANT POINT] (!) [1000754280003][1000754280004]

Admissibility does not depend on relevancy to the issue, or whether the applicant had an opportunity to adduce it earlier, but on whether the appellate court needs it for judgment or substantial cause.[IMPORTANT POINT][1000754280003]

General principle: appellate court should not travel outside lower court record, but Order 41 Rule 27 provides exception if evidence removes doubt, has direct bearing on main issue, and justice requires it. (!) [1000754280003]

Even after permission, applicant must prove documents' existence, authenticity, genuineness, and contents per law.[1000754280004][1000754280005][1000754280006]

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in First Appeal No. 44/2007, by which the High Court has dismissed the said First Appeal preferred by the appellant herein-original claimant, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal.

2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) was issued proposing to acquire the land of the original land owner vide notification dated 01.10.1980 for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 92,121/- for the entire acquired land. A reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act at the instance of the land owner being Reference Case No. 36/1989 came to be rejected.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 36/1989 refusing to enhance the amount of compensation, the appellant herein-original claimant-land owner preferred an appeal before the High Court being First Appeal No. 44/2007. Before the High Court, the appellant herein filed an application for additional evidence unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 216

B. V. NAGARATHNA, M. R. SHAHSanjay Kumar Singh – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – Respondent

B. V. NAGARATHNA, M. R. SHAH
Sanjay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent