Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Bhupendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Namrata Saraswat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2010, Smt. Namrata Saraswat vs. Bhupendra Singh, rejecting the application filed by the defendant-respondent (petitioner), under Rule 27 of Order XLI C.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) Smt. Namrata Saraswat, instituted Original Suit No. 1501 of 1998, Smt. Namrata Saraswat vs. Sri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate, in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghaziabad for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.10.1992 executed by the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’), in favour of the respondent of the property in question. It was pleaded inter alia in the plaint that on 13.08.1990 petitioner was allotted residential plot (property in dispute) by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, and the petitioner on 15.10.1992 executed an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.43,620/-. Rs. 43,000/- was paid in advance as part payment of the considerat
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to permit additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is limited and should be exercised sparingly, with s....
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....
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
