Back
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RANI
kongara sathyamma – Appellant
Versus
md. athara bee – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the appellant’s claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the admissibility of documents. (Para 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of procedural law under cpc. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. effects of order xli rule 27 on appeal proceedings. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
G.RADHA RANI, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.254 of 2019 in A.S.No.30 of 2018 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet.
2. The petitioner was the appellant in A.S.No.30 of 2018. He filed an application under XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC to receive certain documents during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner – appellant was the plaintiff. She filed the suit for injunction against the respondent over the suit schedule property.
3. The case of the petitioner – appellant – plaintiff was that during the trial of the suit, the Government of Telangana contemplated for regularization of residential properties basing on possession. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the same and the Government after enquiry has accorded
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 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....
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, not prior.
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 court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
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....
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
