Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Kuldeep Chand – Appellant
Versus
Pritam Chand – Respondent
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. As per the averments made in the plaint, it was stated that he is joint owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 41, Khatauni No. 50, Khasra Nos. 206, 293, 342, 428/374 and 429/374 Kita-5, measuring 0-37-90 hects its ½ share being equal to 0-18-95 hects situated at Mohal Jamrela, Mauza and Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., as per Jamabandi for the year 2007-08 and the mutation No. 118 dated 26.12.2006, which has been wrongly sanctioned and attested in favour of defendants showing them to be the sole owners in possession of the suit land, be declared as null and void, not binding upon him, being sanctioned at his back.
3. The plaintiff also sought relief of declaration and further for injunctio
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....
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....
The discretion to allow additional evidence in appeal should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances as per the parameters set out in Order XVI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Proce....
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
