Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
Mahammadasab Saipanasab Nadaf – Appellant
Versus
Saipanasab Hussainsab Nadaf, Since Deceased By His Lrs, Smt. Buma W/o. Saipanasab Nadaf, Since Deceased By His Lrs. – Respondent
ORDER
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
A) a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned Order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sit at Jamkhandi on I.A.No.II in RA.No.75/2015 produced at Annexure-E and.
b) To pass an order allowing the Application I.A.No.II filed by the Petitioner/Appellant under order 41 Rule 27(aa)(b) R/w. Sec.151 of CPC in R.A.No.75/2015 pending on the filed of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot vide Annexure-B.
C) Such other writ or orders or direction may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in the interest of justice.
2. Sri B.S.Kamate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession with regard to the different properties. The trial Court partly decreed the suit by allowing partition to some of the properties and dismissed the suit for certain properties. It is submitted that being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Regular Appeal against the dismissal of the suit with regard to certain properties. It is further submit
Due diligence must be established for producing additional evidence in appellate proceedings; the failure to show diligence results in application rejection.
Procedural rules should facilitate justice; denying document submission in a partition suit can lead to injustice.
The court upheld that additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only admissible under specific conditions, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion and the res-judicata principle.
Remand orders must adhere to strict procedural requirements; mere routine remanding without due diligence in evidence withholding is impermissible.
The court allowed the introduction of additional evidence and remitted the case to the Trial Court for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in disputes over property rights.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow additional evidence, emphasizing that the absence of notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act does not invalidate the introduction of seconda....
Proper documentary evidence, including ancient registered deeds, must be considered in ownership disputes, and failure to do so constitutes a denial of justice.
Additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only permissible under specific conditions, which were not met by the appellants.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
