Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
Basanti Devi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of applications under o.21 r.31/32 cpc and prior high court order. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioners argue violation of prior ruling on evidence; respondent concedes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. lower court erred by reusing o.21 r.32 evidence in o.21 r.31 application. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 4. impugned order set aside; remand for fresh merits-based decision. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 28.09.2020, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Tissa, H.P. in the application filed by the respondent herein Under Order 21, Rule 31 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE .
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while deciding the application in terms of the impugned order, learned Court below took into consideration the evidence which was led by the respondent herein in another miscellaneous application filed under Order 21, Rule 32 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE in flagrant violation of the judgment passed by this Court in CMPMO No.45 of 2017, titled Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. And others Versus Basanti Devi , decided on 23.05.2017, in which this Court had clearly held that the e
Evidence from Order XXI Rule 32 application cannot be used in Order XXI Rule 31 proceedings; disregard of prior High Court order prohibiting such reliance renders impugned order perverse.
An application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be decided concurrently with the main appeal to uphold judicial efficacy and fairness.
The duty of the appellate court to comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC, consider evidence on record, and frame proper points for determination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of deferring the hearing of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to the final hearing of the appeal and considering whether the....
The court emphasized that applications for additional evidence must be considered alongside the main appeal to ensure fair adjudication, following established judicial precedents.
Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure is essential for the validity of the first appellate court judgment.
The appellate court must consider applications for additional evidence at the time of hearing the appeal, ensuring relevance to the case.
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
