Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Dilip Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bansi Thakur, Son Of Hiradhan Thakur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.58 of 2018 whereby the petition under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed by the learned appellate court.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that at the appellate stage, the said documents have been allowed and that is against the principle of Order 41 Rule 27. He submits that the due diligence is not there in spite of that the learned Court has passed the said order which is not in accordance with law and in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside. He submits that the documents were in the knowledge of the sole opposite party in spite of that it has not been brought on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party submits that only the certified copy of the khatiyan and the certified copy of order of the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur rel
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 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 judicial exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court in considering applications for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
The admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings requires a clear necessity to support the main issues at hand, as per Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
The court emphasized that applications for additional evidence must be considered alongside the main appeal to ensure fair adjudication, following established judicial precedents.
Procedural rules must serve justice, allowing document submissions and amendments even with delays, provided they are relevant to the case.
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....
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, not prior.
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
