AI Overview...
-
Order 41 Rule 27 - Application of Additional Evidence: This rule allows parties in an appeal to produce additional evidence, but only under specific conditions. The evidence must not have been available despite exercising due diligence, and the application must be made promptly. Courts often reject applications if there is a delay or lack of due diligence, emphasizing that evidence not within knowledge despite due diligence cannot be admitted Dayamanti Devi @ Daimanti Devi, Wife Of Ram Sagar Prasad Sinha, District Of Patna VS Urmila Devi Wife Of Ram Eqwal Singh, P S Punpun, And District Of Patna - Patna, Suman Balkrishna Zodage VS Alaka Suresh Zodage - Bombay, Shyamapada Kumbhkar VS Parmeshwar Kumbhkar - Current Civil Cases.
-
Requirement of Due Diligence: A key principle is that the party seeking to introduce additional evidence must demonstrate that, despite exercising due diligence, the evidence was not within their knowledge at the relevant time. Failure to establish this leads to rejection of the application Mohanpuri VS Masjid Committee - Rajasthan, Shyamapada Kumbhkar VS Parmeshwar Kumbhkar - Current Civil Cases.
-
Rejection of Late or Unreasoned Applications: Courts frequently dismiss applications for additional evidence if they are filed after a significant delay or without sufficient explanation for the delay, underscoring the importance of timely action and diligent conduct Sheetla Prasad VS Vth Additional District Judge Sultanpur - Allahabad, Mohanpuri VS Masjid Committee - Rajasthan.
-
Scope and Limitations: Order 41 Rule 27 primarily restricts the production of new oral or documentary evidence in appeals unless the criteria of due diligence and non-availability are met. It does not generally permit the parties to introduce evidence that was always within their knowledge but not produced earlier Suman Balkrishna Zodage VS Alaka Suresh Zodage - Bombay, Ravindra Brahamchari VS Sachcha Vedic Sansthan (Sachcha Dham) - Uttarakhand.
-
Exceptions and Special Circumstances: In certain cases, courts have allowed additional evidence under Section 151 CPC or Order 47 Rule 1, especially where oversight or error on record is evident, or where non-production was due to inadvertence despite due diligence Mahendra Nath Mishra VS Awadesh Mishra - Patna, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Cochin VS V. N. Thankappan - Kerala, Bainsu (since deceased) vs Budhia - Himachal Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion
Application of Order 41 Rule 27 under the CPC enables parties to introduce additional evidence in appellate proceedings, but strictly under the condition that such evidence was not available despite due diligence. Courts emphasize timely filing and diligent conduct; applications made after undue delays are typically rejected. Exceptions exist where oversight or inadvertence is proven, and the evidence was genuinely unavailable despite diligent efforts. Overall, the rule balances the need for fair trial with the integrity of the appellate process by restricting late evidence unless justified Dayamanti Devi @ Daimanti Devi, Wife Of Ram Sagar Prasad Sinha, District Of Patna VS Urmila Devi Wife Of Ram Eqwal Singh, P S Punpun, And District Of Patna - Patna, Shyamapada Kumbhkar VS Parmeshwar Kumbhkar - Current Civil Cases.
References: - Dayamanti Devi @ Daimanti Devi, Wife Of Ram Sagar Prasad Sinha, District Of Patna VS Urmila Devi Wife Of Ram Eqwal Singh, P S Punpun, And District Of Patna - Patna - Mohanpuri VS Masjid Committee - Rajasthan - Sheetla Prasad VS Vth Additional District Judge Sultanpur - Allahabad - Suman Balkrishna Zodage VS Alaka Suresh Zodage - Bombay - Ravindra Brahamchari VS Sachcha Vedic Sansthan (Sachcha Dham) - Uttarakhand - Bainsu (since deceased) vs Budhia - Himachal Pradesh - V. K. Chhabra VS Samir Bhatia - Punjab and Haryana - Mahendra Nath Mishra VS Awadesh Mishra - Patna - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , Cochin VS V. N. Thankappan - Kerala - Shyamapada Kumbhkar VS Parmeshwar Kumbhkar - Current Civil Cases
Search Results for "Application of Additional Evidence for Due Diligence Without Knowledge under Order 47 Rule 27 1 Aa"
2020 0 Supreme(Pat) 220 • India - Patna
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
(Para 14) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence – Rejection of application for ... establishes that notwithstanding exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within knowledge or could not, after exercise ... Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 27 – Production of additional evidence –....
2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 1491 • India - Rajasthan
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Execution Second Appeal - Possession - Civil Procedure Code - Section 47, Section 151 - Order 41 Rule 27 - AIR 1956 (Raj) 1, 2010 ... to produce additional documents, citing delay and lack of due diligence. ... The objector sought to produce additional documents to support his claim, which were rejected due to delay. ... In this connection, he sought to produce certain additional documents with an....
2013 0 Supreme(All) 3143 • India - Allahabad
ANIL KUMAR
of their application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring additional evidence in a pending appeal. ... The court rejected the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and dismissed the writ petition. ... Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the re....
2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 787 • India - Bombay
S.S.SHINDE
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI, Rule 27-Production of additional evidence-In appeal-Not permissible whether oral or documentary-Unless ... -On perusal of Order XLI, Rule 27 makes it clear that the parties to an appeal would not be entitled to produce additional evidence ... that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligency such evidence was not within h....
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 ... ] - [Rule 27(1)(a), Rule 27(1)(aa), Rule 27(1)(b)] - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 27 of Order#HL_END....
2025 0 Supreme(HP) 829 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 47 - Review petition filed for recalling judgment and decree due ... to non-decision on application for additional evidence - Error apparent on the face of the record established - Court emphasized ... ... ... Issues: The main issue was whether the oversight of the application for additional evidence constituted an ....
1999 0 Supreme(P&H) 956 • India - Punjab and Haryana
R.L.ANAND
ORDER 41 RULE 27, C.P.C. - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - ORDER 41 RULE 20, C.P.C. - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - ANCESTRAL PROPERTY - SALE WITHOUT ... The plaintiff appealed and filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to place additional documentary evidence on record. ... Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. a....
2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 89 • India - Patna
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
Additional Evidence - Civil Procedure Code - Section 151, Order 41 Rule 27 - The court allowed the respondents to give additional ... evidence under Order 47 Rule 1, sub-rule (1), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Order 41 Rule 27 and #HL_STA....
1994 0 Supreme(Ker) 246 • India - Kerala
M.M.PAREED PILLAY, V.V.KAMAT
Insurance Policy - Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal - Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. - Order 47, Rule 27(1)(aa) - Duty of Insurance Company ... Under Order 47, Rule 27(1)(aa) it is for the party seeking to produce additional evidence to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, ....
• India - Current Civil Cases
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – Production of additional evidence – Additional evidence ... ; (II) the evidence was not available to the party despite exercise of due diligence; and p align="justify ... However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in....
Filter by Legal Phrase
