SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 360

B.S.CHAUHAN, R.A.SHARMA
VIRENDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA – Appellant
Versus
ADDL D J AGRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ratnakar Bharti, SUSHIL HARKAULI,

B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 21st October, 1994 has referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision whether the court exercising revisional powers under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act), can admadmit the additional evidence while entertain ing the revision. The reference order reads as under :

"the main question involved before this Court is for adjudication is whether the Court sitting in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act can take additional evidence. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on this point. However it is felt that the matter should be decided by a Division Bench of this Court. "

2. Section 25 of the Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh reads as under:

"revision of decrees and orders of courts of small causes.- The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a court of small causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of the aggrieved party made within 30 days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect t













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top