Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Malayalam Plantations Ltd. VS State of Kerala...
2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1068 : Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to appeals from original decrees, and while it generally prohibits the production of additional evidence in appellate courts, it allows such evidence under specific circumstances: (a) if the trial court refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted; (aa) if the party could not produce the evidence despite due diligence; (b) if the appellate court requires the document or witness to pronounce judgment; or for any other substantial cause. The rule applies to civil appeals, and the appellate court is duty-bound to consider applications for reception of additional evidence on merits. The rule does not apply to civil miscellaneous petitions, which are not appeals from original decrees. Therefore, Order 41 Rule 27 is not applicable to civil miscellaneous petitions.Checking relevance for Jaswant Singh VS Parkash Kaur...
2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1114 : Order 43, Rule 1(c) of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to civil miscellaneous petitions. The document explicitly states that when an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. (a miscellaneous proceeding) is dismissed for default, an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1(c) C.P.C. This is confirmed by multiple judicial precedents cited in the document, including the Full Bench of the High Court of M.P., which held that ''''an appeal lies from an order dismissing for default or on merits an application under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C.'''' Furthermore, the document notes that miscellaneous proceedings initiated before a Civil Court are governed by the procedure prescribed in the C.P.C., including the right of appeal and revision, as established in Ram Chandra Aggarwal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 1888). Therefore, the right of appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(c) applies not only to suits but also to civil miscellaneous petitions.Checking relevance for Vaibhav Jain VS Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Jegannathan VS Raju Sigamani...
2012 0 Supreme(SC) 109 : Order 41 Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) provides that where a trial court has disposed of a suit on merits and the decree is reversed in appeal, and the appellate court considers retrial necessary, it may remand the case to the trial court. An order of remand passed under Order 41 Rule 23A is amenable to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the C.P.C., which allows an appeal from an order under Rule 23 or Rule 23A of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court. This establishes that appeals against orders of remand under Order 41 Rule 23A are maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(u), and thus civil miscellaneous petitions challenging such orders are permissible, provided they meet the procedural requirements for maintainability.Checking relevance for Jaipur Development Authority VS Kailashwati Devi...
1997 8 Supreme 255 : Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is applicable to civil miscellaneous petitions, as the rule permits the production of additional evidence in appellate courts, including in appeals arising from civil proceedings. The judgment clarifies that the requirement to have led evidence in the trial court is not a precondition for filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27, thereby affirming the applicability of the rule to applications for additional evidence in appeals, which may include civil miscellaneous petitions pending before appellate courts.Checking relevance for Namdeo S/o Bapurao Bansod VS Tukaram S/o Marotrao Jadhav...
2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1975 : Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable to civil miscellaneous petitions. This is demonstrated by the case where an application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed during the pendency of a first appeal (which is a civil miscellaneous proceeding) for the purpose of accepting certified copies of revenue extracts as additional evidence. The court examined the procedural validity of such an application and held that the appellate court was required to pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27, rather than treating it as a mere production of documents under Order 13 Rule 1. The court emphasized that the procedure adopted was incorrect because the application under Order 41 Rule 27 was not formally dealt with, indicating that the rule applies in appellate proceedings, including civil miscellaneous petitions.
