Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PARMOD GOYAL
Hari Parkash Mangla – Appellant
Versus
Nawal And Sharma Medical Care Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Judgment :
Parmod Goyal, J.
Present petition has been preferred by plaintiff/petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat, vide which the application for additional evidence moved by the appellant/defendant was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the impugned order dated 09.09.2025, on two grounds. Firstly, that learned First Appellate Court has erred in deciding the application without deciding the main case. It is asserted that learned First Appellate Court had only heard the application and decided the same and, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside. Second ground taken to challenge the impugned order is on merits. It is asserted on behalf of petitioner that learned First Appellate Court has erred in not considering the fact that sale deeds was sought to be adduced in evidence were duly mentioned by respondent/defendant in his written statement and, therefore, at this belated stage in appeal, no ground for additional evidence is made out and learned Court below has erred in allowing the application preferred by petitioner/defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
Appellate courts must consider additional evidence only when critical for the resolution of ongoing legal issues, as per due process.
The court affirmed the validity of the plaintiff's title through a registered sale deed, rejecting the defendants' claims due to lack of evidence for partition and ownership rights.
Additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only permissible under specific conditions, which were not met by the appellants.
An application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of the appeal, not before, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will be upheld unl....
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 court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow additional evidence, emphasizing that the absence of notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act does not invalidate the introduction of seconda....
Inadvertence of party or his inability to understand legal issues involved or wrong advice of a pleader or negligence of a pleader or that party did not realise importance of a document does not cons....
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.
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
