Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN
Shish Ram – Appellant
Versus
Chandgiram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2023 whereby the application filed by the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for additional evidence has partly been allowed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that he is the owner in possession as co-sharer of the land measuring 63 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 163 Khatoni No. 227 alongwith land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas bearing Killa No. 16//15 comprised in Khatoni No. 228 total land being 7 kanals 2 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2001-02. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner herein on 22.09.2016. During the pendency of the appeal, on 06.01.2020 an application was filed by the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for leading additional evidence (Annexure P-1). Vide the said application the defendant-respondent N
Additional evidence must be evaluated during the final appeal hearing, not before, ensuring judicial rigor in respecting procedural rules.
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.
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, not prior.
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.
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 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 strict interpretation and application of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C regarding the admissibility of additional evidence in the app....
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
