Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manish Kumar Nigam
Abujar Lari – Appellant
Versus
Rampati – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. I, District- Deoria in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2025 allowing the Application No. 29 C filed by appellant before the court below to take on record the documents annexed along with Paper No. 29-C in appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that plaintiff-respondents first set instituted original Suit No. 54 of 2024 for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondents of the property in dispute described in the plaint. Along with the suit, plaintiff-respondents also filed an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. being application No. 6C. The said application filed by the plaintiff-respondents was rejected by the trial court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 18, Deoria by order dated 18.01.2025. Being aggrieved, plaintiff- respondents filed Misc. appeal No. 9 of 2025 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. (Rampati and others Vs. Abujar Lari and others). During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff-respondents
The appellate court can admit additional evidence in misc. appeals against interim injunctions, emphasizing justice over strict adherence to procedural rules.
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 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....
The court emphasized the requirement for additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and releva....
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....
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, not prior.
Applications for additional evidence at the appellate stage must be considered during final arguments and not prematurely, aligning with principles to prevent patching weak cases.
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
