AI Overview...
-
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Relevance and Materiality of Additional Evidence: The primary criterion for allowing an application under Order 41, Rule 27 is that the additional evidence must be relevant and materially significant to the case. Courts consider whether the evidence could influence the decision and if its absence would cause injustice Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi VS Uttaradi Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi - Karnataka.
-
Time Lapse and Delay in Filing Applications: Multiple sources emphasize that a significant delay, often spanning several years or decades, adversely affects the likelihood of admitting additional evidence. Courts are generally reluctant to entertain such applications after long periods, especially when the delay is unexplained or unjustified Arun Kumar VS Saroj Dwivedi - Patna, N. Rathina Reddy and Others VS N. Rani ammal and Others - Madras, Bansidhar Panda (since dead) VS Pravakar Panda - Orissa.
-
Exceptional Circumstances for Admission: Despite the general rule against late evidence, exceptions exist where the evidence is crucial, and the delay is satisfactorily explained. For instance, in long-standing litigation (over 34 years), courts may consider the importance of new evidence but still exercise caution VEKHOLE KEZO AND 4 ORS vs KERETHI VERO - Gauhati.
-
Rejection of Applications Due to Non-Compliance: Applications filed after considerable delays or without proper justification are often rejected. Courts have held that the procedural requirements under Order 41 Rule 27 are strict, and late filings without valid reasons are not entertained Vishnu Iron & Steel Industries VS Govind Ram - Rajasthan, Rajinder Singh Cahuhan VS State Of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh.
-
Legal Principles and Finality of Evidence: Courts stress the importance of finality in proceedings. The production of additional evidence is generally restricted to prevent reopening settled issues, especially when the delay undermines the fairness of the process Bansidhar Panda (since dead) VS Pravakar Panda - Orissa.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The consensus across the sources indicates that after a long lapse of time—often exceeding several years—an application to produce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 is typically barred, unless exceptional circumstances justify the delay and the evidence's relevance. Courts prioritize finality and fairness, making late applications generally inadmissible, especially when the delay is unexplained or unreasonable. Therefore, in cases with significant delay, additional evidence applications are unlikely to be entertained, aligning with the principle that such applications cannot be filed after a long lapse of time unless exceptional conditions are met Arun Kumar VS Saroj Dwivedi - Patna, N. Rathina Reddy and Others VS N. Rani ammal and Others - Madras, Bansidhar Panda (since dead) VS Pravakar Panda - Orissa.
Search Results for "After Long Lapse of Time Additional Evidence Application Cannot be Filed under Order 41 Rule 27 Cpc"
2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 880 • India - Karnataka
VINEET KOTHARI
for allowing such application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC is to see whether additional evidence is relevant and has a material ... CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – Order 41, Rule 21 – Relevant consideration to allow additional evidence – The relevant consideration ... reject the additional evidence. ... The....
2022 0 Supreme(UK) 347 • India - Uttarakhand
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Rejection of Application for Additional Evidence - [PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN APPELLATE COURT ... specified in Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC. ... Fact of the Case: The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application under Order 41 #HL_ST....
2023 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 7279 • India - Kohima Bench
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Interlocutory Application for additional evidence - In an appeal arising from ... ... ... Result: Application dismissed. ... The long-standing litigation (over 34 years) warrants careful consideration of any new evidence. ... However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 #....
2011 0 Supreme(Pat) 1881 • India - Patna
MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
of the controversy between the parties-application under order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has no force. ... 27-Powers of appellate court to admit additional evidence-Mr. ... . more than 39 years the appellants cannot be allowed to adduce additional evidence-Said documents are not at all necessary for determination ... Another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 271 ....
2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 107 • India - Patna
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 41, Rule 27-Production of additional evidence in appellate court- The appellate court allowing ... the application filed by the defendant-O.P. holding it necessary that the document in question be taken as additional evidence- ... The application of defendant falling under clause (aa) of Rule 27-The defendant....
2003 0 Supreme(Raj) 276 • India - Rajasthan
HARBANS LAL
C.P.C., Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 13 Rule 2 read with Sec. 151 – Appeal – Production of additional evidence in appellate Court – ... Effect of non-production of documents – Held – Parties to an appeal are not entitled to adduce additional evidence in appellate ... shall not be entitled to adduce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in an appellate co....
2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 1270 • India - Madras
N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
Code of Civil Procedure, 1973-Order 41, Rule 27-Production of additional evidence in second appeal-Same can be entertained only for ... In our view, a plain reading of Order 41, Rule 27 would depict that the rejection of the claim of production of additional evidence after a period of 10 years from the date of filing of the appeal, as noticed above, ca....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15225 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Appeal against preliminary decree for partition - The appellants challenged ... Court emphasized that additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only permissible under specific conditions outlined in Order ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the appellants did not meet the criteria for admitting additional evidence under Order ... appellan....
2018 0 Supreme(Ori) 295 • India - Orissa
A.K.RATH
Evidence - Commissioner's Report - Finality of Decree - Consolidation ROR - Khata Number - Sambhunath Sahu v. ... Possession - Property Dispute - Ext.3 - Title Suit No.72 of 1964 - Plot Nos.2444, 2445, 2448 - Adverse Possession - Additional ... There is no plausible explanation as to why the applications were filed after lapse of so many years. Additional evidence can be taken when the conditions enumerated in Order 41 Rul....
2017 0 Supreme(HP) 1343 • India - Himachal Pradesh
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
Additional Evidence - Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction - Order 41 Rule 27 - [Order 41 Rule 27 CPC] - The court discussed ... The applicant sought to lead additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. ... It held that the applicati....
Filter by Legal Phrase
