Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The filing of supplementary affidavits often occurs during ongoing proceedings to address evidentiary gaps or respond to counter-affidavits.
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["PRASHANT SINGH AND 5 OTHERS vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER - Allahabad"]- ["SELVAM vs SUBBALAKSHMI - Madras"]- ["SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA : SBI BHAVAN BK, PLOT NO 4A, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI , DISTRICT: MUMBAI ,MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA vs THE GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD : COMMITTEE GFIL, MAIN BUILDING, GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD VPO JHARMARI VIA LALRU, AMBALA CHANDIGARH NATIONAL HIGHWAY 22, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, MOHALI , DISTRICT: MOHALI ,MOHALI , PUNJAB - Supreme Court"]- ["SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA : SBI BHAVAN BK, PLOT NO 4A, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI , DISTRICT: MUMBAI ,MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA vs THE GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD : COMMITTEE GFIL, MAIN BUILDING, GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD VPO JHARMARI VIA LALRU, AMBALA CHANDIGARH NATIONAL HIGHWAY 22, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, MOHALI , DISTRICT: MOHALI ,MOHALI , PUNJAB - Supreme Court"]- ["SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA : SBI BHAVAN BK, PLOT NO 4A, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI , DISTRICT: MUMBAI ,MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA vs THE GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD : COMMITTEE GFIL, MAIN BUILDING, GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD VPO JHARMARI VIA LALRU, AMBALA CHANDIGARH NATIONAL HIGHWAY 22, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, MOHALI , DISTRICT: MOHALI ,MOHALI , PUNJAB - Supreme Court"]- ["SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA : SBI BHAVAN BK, PLOT NO 4A, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI , DISTRICT: MUMBAI ,MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA vs THE GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD : COMMITTEE GFIL, MAIN BUILDING, GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD VPO JHARMARI VIA LALRU, AMBALA CHANDIGARH NATIONAL HIGHWAY 22, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, MOHALI , DISTRICT: MOHALI ,MOHALI , PUNJAB - Supreme Court"]
In the intricate world of Indian legal proceedings, affidavits serve as crucial pieces of evidence. But what happens when new facts emerge after the initial filing? This is where supplementary affidavits come into play. Many litigants wonder: supplementary evidence affidavit – can they be filed freely, or are there strict rules? This blog post dives deep into the permissibility, procedures, and judicial stance on supplementary affidavits, drawing from key court observations to help you navigate this effectively.
While this information is based on established legal precedents, it is for general educational purposes only and not a substitute for professional legal advice. Always consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Supplementary affidavits are additional sworn statements filed to introduce new facts, clarify existing ones, or bolster evidence after the primary affidavit. They are recognized under Indian law as a form of evidence but are not to be taken lightly. Courts emphasize that affidavits, including supplementary ones, must be verified carefully and based on personal knowledge or credible sources. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916Shamsher Singh Died vs Sukhbeer Singh - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2921
The core issue arises from attempts to file them piecemeal or without permission, which courts frown upon. As one court noted, it is not the sweet-will of the parties that they may file any number of affidavits or evidence as and when they may desire. For doing this, learned counsel for the parties are supposed to seek permission from the Court. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916
Supplementary affidavits typically require prior permission from the court. Filing without leave can lead to outright rejection, as it undermines procedural discipline. Courts have consistently held that such additional facts... cannot be allowed to be raised without permission or leave of the Court. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916
This principle is echoed in practice. For instance, in a Supreme Court matter, an advocate filed a Supplementry Affidavit alongwith Annexures Counter Affidavit on behalf of Committee specifically with the permission of the Hon’ble Court. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA : SBI BHAVAN BK, PLOT NO 4A, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI , DISTRICT: MUMBAI ,MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA vs THE GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD : COMMITTEE GFIL, MAIN BUILDING, GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD VPO JHARMARI VIA LALRU, AMBALA CHANDIGARH NATIONAL HIGHWAY 22, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, MOHALI , DISTRICT: MOHALI ,MOHALI , PUNJAB This highlights how permission ensures fairness and prevents ambushing the opposing party.
Even with permission, the affidavit must contain relevant new facts that could not have been included earlier with reasonable diligence. Courts scrutinize:- Authenticity: Proper verification and personal knowledge.- Novelty: Truly supplementary, not rehashing old evidence.- Non-prejudicial: Does not alter core issues late in proceedings.
If facts are controverted or could have been presented initially, rejection is likely. All the facts stated have not been controverted by the respondents, still I considered the same and I am of the view that such additional facts is firstly cannot be allowed to be raised without permission. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916
Courts exercise wide discretion. The practice of repeated filings is neither reasonable nor can he be encouraged. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916 This discourages tactical delays and promotes efficiency.
In consumer protection cases, similar scrutiny applies. For restoration of complaints dismissed in default, affidavits explaining non-appearance must show good cause, reinforcing procedural rigor. Though not directly supplementary, it underscores affidavits' role in evidence supplementation under judicial oversight.
While strict, exceptions exist:- Newly Discovered Facts: Permitted if unavailable earlier, with court leave. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916- No Prejudice to Opponent: If it doesn't change case fundamentals.- Specific Permissions Granted: As seen in higher court filings. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA : SBI BHAVAN BK, PLOT NO 4A, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI , DISTRICT: MUMBAI ,MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA vs THE GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD : COMMITTEE GFIL, MAIN BUILDING, GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD VPO JHARMARI VIA LALRU, AMBALA CHANDIGARH NATIONAL HIGHWAY 22, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, MOHALI , DISTRICT: MOHALI ,MOHALI , PUNJAB
In another context, supplementary statements of witnesses were referenced in high court proceedings, indicating acceptance when procedurally sound. LAKHAN AND ORS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR
However, courts remain cautious. In assessment rebate claims, supplementary duties were addressed only per departmental circulars, showing limits even in administrative matters. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCI vs M/S.STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I)L - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 48416
Improper filing can doom evidence:- Rejection: Affidavit ignored, weakening your case.- Costs or Adverse Inferences: Perceived as mala fide.- Procedural Delays: Opposing party may object, prolonging hearings.
Conversely, well-filed supplementary affidavits strengthen positions. In training exam disputes, supplementary evidence supported participation claims. Upendra Prasad Singh VS Bihar School Examination Board - 1990 Supreme(Pat) 122
Trial courts must balance this with fairness, as in property suits where plaintiffs bear the burden of cogent evidence without misuse of rules. SELVAM vs SUBBALAKSHMI
To maximize success:- Seek Permission Early: File applications explaining necessity.- Draft Meticulously: Ensure relevance, verification, and sources.- Avoid Multiples: Present comprehensively upfront.- Anticipate Scrutiny: Back with documents or witnesses.
Courts should likewise verify compliance for integrity. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916Shamsher Singh Died vs Sukhbeer Singh - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2921
Newspaper reports or unverified sources don't qualify as evidence, reinforcing affidavits' primacy when properly filed. It needs no reiteration that newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally acceptable evidence. Vadlapatla Naga Vara Prasad VS Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification, Bharat Bhavan, Mumbai - 2011 Supreme(AP) 1073Vadlapatla Naga Vara Prasad VS Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification, Bharat Bhavan, Mumbai - 2011 Supreme(AP) 1072
In trust removal suits under Section 92 CPC, plaintiffs failed due to insufficient proof, including potential supplementary evidence gaps. Heera Lal Chippi & Others VS Pt. Hubblal & Others - 2013 Supreme(All) 297
Criminal cases demand complete chains; non-explanation via affidavits assumes weight only in context. Various IPC references
Navigating supplementary affidavits requires precision. For tailored guidance, engage legal experts. Stay informed, file smartly, and uphold court processes.
References:1. Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2916: Core observations on permission and piecemeal filing.2. Shamsher Singh Died vs Sukhbeer Singh - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2921: Affidavit verification and drafting standards.3. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA : SBI BHAVAN BK, PLOT NO 4A, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA E MUMBAI , DISTRICT: MUMBAI ,MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA vs THE GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD : COMMITTEE GFIL, MAIN BUILDING, GOLDEN FORESTS (INDIA) LTD VPO JHARMARI VIA LALRU, AMBALA CHANDIGARH NATIONAL HIGHWAY 22, TEHSIL DERA BASSI, MOHALI , DISTRICT: MOHALI ,MOHALI , PUNJAB: Example of permitted filing.
This post draws exclusively from cited legal documents. Word count: ~950
#SupplementaryAffidavit #IndianLaw #CourtEvidence
28.09.2021 mentioning the verification as Annexure-2, supplementry ... Vide supplementary affidavit the applicants have filed a compromise deed and copy of the compromise which p style="position:absolute
The burden is entirely on the plaintiffs to bring convincing and cogent evidece on record and for so doing, it is not permissible for them to invoke Order XXVI Rule 9, which is intended for different purpose.” ... The trial Court by considering the fact that the relief sought for in the suit is for permanent injunction and also considering the reasons stated in the application and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, had dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner herein. ... The respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter #....
The burden is entirely on the plaintiffs to bring convincing and cogent evidece on record and for so doing, it is not permissible for them to invoke Order XXVI Rule 9, which is intended for different purpose ... The respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter affidavit before the trial Court, stating that the aforesaid application was filed by the petitioners with malafide intention to grab the suit property and further the suit is now posted ... The trial Court by considering the fact that the relief sought for in the suit is ....
Gaurav Dhingra, Advocate has on 20.08.2018 with the permission of the Hon’ble Court filed Supplementry Affidavit alongwith Annextures Counter Affidavit on behalf of Committee. ... Suruchi Agrawal, Advocate has on 10.08.2018 filed Affidavit to the Counter Affidavits of (State of Punjab) and (State of Uttarakhand) and ... Anubha Agrawal, Advocate has on 03.07.2018 filed an applications on behalf of the applicants for intervention with affidavit which has been/
From the mere fact that the case of the learned Counsel for the appellant was mentioned in the ordinary supplementry list dated 10.8.2004, it cannot be said that he actually appeared before the First Division Bench on 10.8.2004. ... Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate has filed duly sworn affidavit stating that he did not appear before the First Division Bench in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Serial No. 232 in ordinary supplementary list. ... There is nothing to disbelieve the sworn affidavit of the appellant’s Counsel to the effect that he was t....
SEM2 MTE 1 Absent Main attempt 30.07.09 MTE 1 24 Date SEM1 MTE 1 32 Main attempt 28.11.08 MTE 1 48 Supplementry
In the supplementry statements of the witnesses as well as the statement p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin
It is said that the petitioner appeared in training examination which was held on 29th January, 1973 (Supplementry). The petitioners fees and forma were accepted and he participated in the examination for the session 1970-72.
obtaining the certified copies of the documents sought to be tendered in evidece
3.The CESTAT, however, found that even as per the Circulars of the Department, in the Supplementary Assessment made and the duty paid also to have to be refunded and the assessee is entitled to the rebate of the duty paid under Supplementry
On the other hand, no evidece has been led on behlaf of defendants." At the time of trial, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, Ct. Ankur of Complaint Branch, Ashok Vihar as PW-2, HC Jai Prakash of P.S Subhash Place as PW-3, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, LDC from office of SubRegistrar as PW-4 (his testimony could not be completed) and Sh. Rama Shankar, UDC, DUSIB North Zone B Shakur Pur as PW-5.
The support to the evidence is also found from the evidece of PW9 about appellant absconding. It needs no saying that the suspicion about the character of the wife has been found to be a sufficient motive for causing harm to her since the time immemoriable. And particularly the answer to the last question, which is reproduced earlier. Thus considering such evidence, which duly establishes the appellant having sufficient motive to commit the murder of his wife and so also his daughter is established by the prosecution and hence finding to such effect arrived by the trial Cou....
Moreover, there is no evidence to show that Madho Das was the adopted son of Laxmandas. The other evidece on record shows that Badridas was the owner of plot no.121. Name of the defendant no.1 Hublal finds recorded in the revenue record over a considerable period of time. The said fact is established from the revenue record particularly extract of Khasra of 1872F.
It needs no reiteration that newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally acceptable evidece…” It is too much to attribute authenticity or credibility to any information or fact merely because it found publication in a newspaper or journal or magazine or any other form of communication, as though it is gospel truth.
It is too much to attribute authenticity or credibility to any information or fact merely because it found publication in a newspaper or journal or magazine or any other form of communication, as though it is gospel truth. It needs no reiteration that newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally acceptable evidece…”
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
