Back
K. R. MOHAPATRA
T. Biranchi Narayan Patro – Appellant
Versus
Ch. Mohan Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT
K.R. Mohapatra, J.—This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel by filing Vakalatnama enters appearance on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased Opposite Party No.2. Vakalatnama is taken on record.
3. Order dated 12th July, 2016 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani in R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Appellant No.1-Petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, has been rejected.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner that R.F.A. No.9 of 2015 arises out of the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phulbani in C.S. No.12 of 2013, which was filed by the Petitioner and Proforma Opposite Party No.2 for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit house and for eviction of Defendant-Opposite Party No.1. The suit was dismissed on contest holding that the Petitioner-Plaintiff No.1 is not the title holder of the suit property. While adjudicating the suit, learned trial Court observed that the certified copies of the documents filed by the Appellants were not
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 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....
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 cannot be admitted in appellate proceedings unless it is relevant to the pleadings and cannot be used to fill gaps in a party's case.
(1) Additional evidence – Parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at appellate stage.(2) Appeal is ordinarily to be decided on evidence adduced b....
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, not prior.
The admission of additional evidence in appellate courts is subject to strict criteria under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC; parties must demonstrate due diligence for not presenting evidence at trial.
The admissibility of additional evidence in appellate courts under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC requires the party to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence and that the trial court had refused ....
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
