Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah
Silchar Municipal Board – Appellant
Versus
Gopendu Choudhury, S/o Late Jnanendra Choudhury – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. This is an application filed challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.269/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.33/2010 whereby an application file under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) was allowed by the learned Trial Court thereby granting leave to adduce evidence in respect to the Sale Deed No.749 dated 05.08.2005 and Sale Deed No.950 dated 13.12.2005.
3. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that at paragraph No.5 of the plaint in Title Suit No.33/2010, the plaintiff had duly mentioned about the registered Sale Deed No.749 dated 05.08.2005 as well as the registered Sale Deed No.950 dated 13.12.2005 whereby it is also seen that the plaintiff had claimed the title on the basis of the said two Deeds of Sale. However, in the written statement filed by the defendants who are in the petitioner herein, there is no specific denial as regards the existence of the said Deeds of Sale.
4. The records reveal that at the stage of arguments of the suit, an application was filed by the p
The court upheld the Trial Court's discretion to permit additional evidence, emphasizing the requirement for cross-examination rights for the defendants to ensure procedural fairness and justice.
The court emphasized that the admissibility of additional evidence must follow procedural law, ensuring fairness and the right for opposing parties to challenge evidence presented.
The court affirmed that additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only permissible if necessary for a just decision, not to remedy deficiencies in the original case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due diligence in producing relevant documents and the discretion of the court in allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule....
Court may allow framing of additional issues but must require justification for receiving further evidence after both parties have presented their respective claims.
The court allowed a petition for additional evidence despite previous adjournments, citing the admissibility of the documents proposed.
The court emphasized the requirement for additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and releva....
The court emphasized that additional evidence may only be permitted under exceptional circumstances, not as a routine, and evaluated the impact of delay on justice delivery.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require demonstration of due diligence; extensions must not be granted mechanically.
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
