Back
SIDDHARTHA VARMA
Colonel Mukul Dev – Appellant
Versus
Deveshwari Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
1. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit being Suit No. 848 of 2002 for declaration and also for a permanent injunction praying that the suit property situate at 142, Jattiwara, Meerut be declared as the property of the plaintiff and also the defendant be restrained by a permanent injunction from causing any interference in the peaceful possession and occupation of the property 142, Jattiwara, Meerut. The claim was set up by stating that the husband of the plaintiff-respondent namely late Surendra Dayal, who had expired on 17.6.2002, had bequeathed the property in question by a will dated 19.5.2002. A further allegation was there in the plaint that the father of the deceased-husband of the plaintiff late Sri Shiv Dayal had willed his self-earned property on 29.4.1974 to the deceased-husband of the plaintiff. The suit was filed sometime in the year 2002 and thereafter the petitioner-defendant Colonel Mukul Dev filed a written statement on 18.6.2002. Thereafter issues were struck and the parties submitted their affidavits by way of examination-in-chief. The plaintiff and the defendant were put to cross- examination and before the settlement of the issues
The court has the power under section 151 CPC to allow additional evidence to be brought on record, with caution and care, to meet the ends of justice, even if there is no specific provision in the C....
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
Documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, emphasizing the necessity of timely submission under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
The trial court must afford due opportunities to the parties to contest the case and cannot adopt an extremely harsh and hyper-technical approach in rejecting applications for taking documents on rec....
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....
A court may permit additional evidence to ensure fair adjudication if it is relevant, even after evidence closure, stressing the necessity to examine evidence related to a Will in contested property ....
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
