Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
HIRDESH
Harishankar Vaishya – Appellant
Versus
Mandir Shri Janki Mandir Trust – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC has been filed by appellant-defendant therein, assailing the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by Principal District Judge, Shivpuri District-Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No.27A/2021, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pohari, District-Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.3-A/2017 and remanding the matter to the trial Court.
2. A few facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, as narrated therein, are that plaintiff is the legal owner of shop in dispute and a suit has been filed by Shri Ramji Lal Gupta, Ex-officio President of Shri Ramjanaki Mandir Trust (in short ''the Trust'') on behalf of the Trust. It was pleaded that on 01-01-2007 a shop measuring 17x 24 feet from Temple Trust for Rs.1,500/- per month was taken by defendant on rent for the purpose of running sweets business, on the basis of oral agreement with the rust and vacant possession of the shop in dispute was handed over to defendant on the same day. As per oral agreement, the tenancy would commence on the first day of each Gregorian month and conclude on the last day of that month. The monthly
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering material aspects and appreciating the findings of the trial court in property dispute cases.
The Appellate Court cannot remand a case without meeting the specific criteria outlined in the Civil Procedure Code, particularly under Order 41, Rules 23, 23-A, or 25.
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....
The discretion to allow additional evidence in appeal should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances as per the parameters set out in Order XVI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Proce....
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
