Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Rajinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Lalit Mohan Rajprohat – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.
Defendant No.3 of the Civil Suit No.543 of 2009 titled as "Lalit Mohan Rajprohat v. Dushyant Bansal and others", dismissed on 17.01.2011 by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalandhar, is before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, remanding the appeal (CA bearing CNR N: PBJL01-011051-2012) filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) and allowing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and further directing the trial Court to allow the amendment in pleadings, if sought by the plaintiff.
2. In order to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the case set up by the plaintiff - Lalit Mohan Rajprohat, Smt. Chanchal Rani and Shri Sanjiv Gulati were earlier recorded to be the owner of the land measuring 20 Marlas comprised in Khasra No.13142 situated at Mohalla Gobind Nagar, Jalandhar in Jamabandi for the year 1989-90. Chanchal Rani executed a general power of attorney dated 07.11.1990 regarding 10 marlas of the said land in favour of Vikas Chhabra & Manmohan Singh. Sanj
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.
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 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....
Amendments altering the fundamental nature of a case are impermissible; evidence must align with pleadings for consideration in civil litigation.
Remand orders must adhere to strict procedural requirements; mere routine remanding without due diligence in evidence withholding is impermissible.
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....
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
