Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Era Educational Trust...

Checking relevance for IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION VS . ...

Checking relevance for In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS Union Of India...

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS Union Of India - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 1198 : The court permitted Mr. John Mathew, learned counsel, to file an additional affidavit on behalf of the applicant within four weeks, indicating that it is permissible to file an additional affidavit in an interlocutory application with the court''''s permission. This implies that while a party may not automatically file an additional affidavit without authorization, the court has the discretion to allow such filing, and no separate application to seek permission to file the additional affidavit is required if the court explicitly permits it in its order.Checking relevance for Hotel Sea Gull VS State Of W. B. ...

Checking relevance for Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S. N. Shukla I. A. S. (Retd) VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for Gundecha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs IIFL Finance Ltd....

Gundecha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs IIFL Finance Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1137 : Under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to commercial suits, any additional documents filed subsequent to the filing of the suit can be admitted only with the permission of the Court, and such documents must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the suit. The Court emphasized that the additional affidavit filed after the matter was heard, without seeking leave of the Court or providing adequate explanation, ought not to be taken on record, indicating that permission is required to file additional affidavits in interlocutory applications.Checking relevance for Shaik Madhar Saheb, Nalgonda Dist VS Shaik Shareef Baba, Nalgonda Dist...

Checking relevance for Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal VS Kulvinder Singh Bansal...

Checking relevance for Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for S. Menaka VS K. S. K. Nepolian Socraties...

S. Menaka VS K. S. K. Nepolian Socraties - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 515 : Yes, it is necessary to file an application seeking permission to file an additional affidavit in an interlocutory application. The Supreme Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, has provided guidelines under which a party may submit an amended or supplementary affidavit if there is a change in financial status, a change in relevant circumstances, or if new information comes to light. The court may consider such an amended/supplementary affidavit at the time of final determination. While the guidelines do not explicitly require a separate application for permission, the process implies that any such submission must be brought to the court''''s attention, and the court may require a formal application or permission, especially if it is being filed after the initial affidavit. The court retains discretion to allow or reject such submissions based on the circumstances, and the party must ensure that the submission is made in a timely and responsible manner. The court may also invoke provisions under Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if necessary, to ensure proper disclosure.Checking relevance for Ganesh Mirchande S/o. Shri Kapildas VS Nileshwari Mirchande W/o. Ganesh Mirchande...

Ganesh Mirchande S/o. Shri Kapildas VS Nileshwari Mirchande W/o. Ganesh Mirchande - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 11 : Yes, it is necessary to file an application seeking permission to file an additional (amended or supplementary) affidavit in an interlocutory application. According to the guidelines laid down in the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh (supra), if there is a change in the financial status of any party, or a change in relevant circumstances, or if new information comes to light during the course of proceedings, the party may submit an amended or supplementary affidavit. This submission would be considered by the court at the time of final determination. While the guidelines do not explicitly state that an application for permission is required, the procedural framework implies that such submissions must be made with the court''''s knowledge and consent, particularly in interlocutory proceedings where the court maintains control over the process. The court may allow such submissions under its inherent powers, and the party must seek the court’s permission to file additional affidavits, especially if they are not filed within the prescribed time or in response to a specific order.Checking relevance for Dental Council Of India VS S. R. M. Institute Of Science & Technology...

Checking relevance for Olympic Industries VS Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally...

Checking relevance for SURESH CHAND VS VII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR...

Checking relevance for Salem Advocate Bar Association, T. N. VS Union Of India...

Checking relevance for Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. VS Collector, Hyderabad Dist. ...

Checking relevance for Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi VS Hotel Workers Union...

Checking relevance for D. P. Diwakar Raju VS S. Haribabu...

D. P. Diwakar Raju VS S. Haribabu - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2624 : Yes, it is necessary to file an application seeking permission to file an additional affidavit in an interlocutory application. In the case at hand, the trial court directed the petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 to file an application under Section 94(e) and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to file an additional counter affidavit in I.A.No.9504 of 2016. The petitioners/defendants 2 to 4 subsequently filed I.A.No.14171 of 2016 for this purpose, which was dismissed by the trial court. The court''''s directive and the petitioners'''' compliance with it confirm that a formal application is required to obtain permission to file an additional affidavit, even though the additional affidavit was filed before the application was formally submitted. The court acknowledged that the application was filed at the instance of the trial court, but still required the formal application to be filed under Section 94(e) and 151 of the CPC.

• Necessity of Filing an Application for Permission to File Additional Affidavits - Main points and insights:
• Courts generally require parties to seek permission before filing additional affidavits or evidence, especially when it involves evidence already filed or new evidence to be introduced at interlocutory stages. This is to ensure fairness and prevent undue delay ["Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. VS A. Prabhakara Reddy - Karnataka"].
• Sub-rule (1-B) of Rule (4) of Order 18 CPC explicitly states that a party shall not lead additional evidence by affidavit unless sufficient cause is shown in an application for such purpose, and the court grants permission with reasons ["Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. VS A. Prabhakara Reddy - Karnataka"].
• Filing such an application is a procedural requirement to justify the need for additional affidavits or documents, and courts routinely scrutinize whether sufficient cause has been made out before allowing such filings ["Vikash Sinha and Ors vs The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors - Patna"].
• Some decisions emphasize that without a proper application and court order, the filing of additional affidavits can be considered irregular or prejudicial to the opposing party ["V.MUTHUSAMY vs V.MUTHUSAMY - Madras"].

• Conversely, there are instances where interlocutory applications are filed for specific reliefs or to seek extension of time, and these are allowed based on the court's discretion, but the filing of affidavits still generally requires prior permission ["Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo vs State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].

• Analysis and Conclusion:

• It is generally necessary to file an application seeking permission to file additional affidavits or evidence in interlocutory proceedings, as mandated by procedural rules (e.g., Order 18 Rule 4 CPC). This ensures transparency, fairness, and adherence to due process.
• Courts tend to disallow or scrutinize such filings if they are made without proper application or court approval, to prevent abuse or unnecessary delay.
• Therefore, parties should always seek and obtain court permission through a proper interlocutory application before filing additional affidavits of the same party in interlocutory applications or stages of trial, unless specific rules or circumstances provide otherwise ["Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. VS A. Prabhakara Reddy - Karnataka"] ["Vikash Sinha and Ors vs The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors - Patna"].

References:- ["Vikash Sinha and Ors vs The Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors - Patna"]- ["Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. VS A. Prabhakara Reddy - Karnataka"]- ["V.MUTHUSAMY vs V.MUTHUSAMY - Madras"]- ["Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo vs State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]