Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Kuldeep Chand – Appellant
Versus
Pritam Chand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership dispute; suit for declaration against wrongful mutation dismissed (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. application for additional evidence via old sale deeds allowed despite delay (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. counsel argue impugned order violates o41 r27 parameters (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. o41 r27 requires due diligence or substantial cause for additional evidence (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. appellate court erred lacking reasons, due diligence, relevance explanation (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. sc precedents: strict conditions, pleadings check, record reasons mandatory (Para 31 , 32) |
| 7. set aside order; remand for fresh o41 r27 consideration (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present petition arises out of the order dated 02.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., whereby application filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. on 19.05.2011. A
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
Second appeals under CPC S.100 do not permit re-appreciation of evidence; concurrent findings upheld absent perversity or substantial question of law. Adverse possession claim fails without rebutting....
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C regarding the admissibility of additional evidence in the app....
The Appellate Court cannot remand a case without meeting the specific criteria outlined in the Civil Procedure Code, particularly under Order 41, Rules 23, 23-A, or 25.
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....
Point of Law : Provisions of clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41CPC. Said rule applies when Court feels that production of any document or examination of any witness is necessary to enable it to pronou....
(1) Additional evidence – Parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at appellate stage.(2) Appeal is ordinarily to be decided on evidence adduced b....
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
