Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Fulchand Ram, Son Of Late Barhan Bhuiya – Appellant
Versus
Sobhi Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Chanchal Jain the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Partition Suit No.175 of 2006 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) IX, Hazaribagh, whereby two petitions both dated 14.03.2024 filed by the purchasers/defendants (respondent nos.6 to 8, 15 to 22, 26,27,31,33,35 to 37 and 52) has been allowed and to recall the order dated 03.05.2014 has also been allowed.
3. Mr. Chanchal Jain the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the suit was already proceeded and at the fag end of the suit, the documents have been filed by the defendants which has been allowed by the learned court. He submits that at such belated stage, the said order has been passed and the order dated 03.05.2014 has also been recalled which is against the mandate of law. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the case of Y.N.Gupta v. Jagdish Chander Sharma and Another reported in 2010 (116) DRJ 737 and he submits that belatedly the filing o
Procedural rules must facilitate, not hinder, justice; courts hold discretion to admit relevant documents even if filed late.
Procedural rules serve justice; hence, a trial court may allow late document submissions to avoid denying justice or causing multiplicity of litigation.
Preventing document submission due to delay constitutes injustice; courts should allow evidence while imposing costs for late filings instead of rejecting submissions outright.
Procedural rules must serve justice, allowing document submissions and amendments even with delays, provided they are relevant to the case.
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.
The admissibility of additional evidence in appellate proceedings depends on its necessity for the court to pronounce judgment, not on prior opportunities to present it.
The court emphasized the need to provide an opportunity for plaintiffs to lead evidence, overriding procedural closure to ensure justice in light of changed circumstances.
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
