Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Sukru Bibhar vs Tileswar Naik And Ors. on 17 June, 1998

Smt. Rukmani Nayak & Another vs Pradip Kumar Nayak & Others on 23 December, 2025

In the cases between Sukru Bibhar Vs. Tilekswar Naik & Others 1998(II) OLR 129 & Kamlesh Manjari Devi Vs. Satyanarayan Aich & Others reported in 2008 (II) OLR 383 that, appellate court to postpone the consideration of the petition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC for adducing additional evidence till hearing of the appeal and to take up the same at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits to find out the relevancy about the admissibility of the additional evidence. XIII.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bijay Kumar Banerjee Alias ... vs Smt. Malati Banerjee on 30 March, 2007

13. The submission of Mr. Mohapatra that the Court below ought to have decided the objection filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC independently. The law is well settled that if a petition under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is filed, the appellate Court may postpone consideration of the said petition till hearing of the appeal and should take up the same at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits so as to find as to whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance or bearing in the issues involved. See 1998 (II) OLR 129 Sukru Bibhar v. Tileswar Naik and Ors. The documents sought to be introduced in the present case being all materials on record and a judgment in an earlier suit and as the same having a bearing on the issues, to be decided by the Court, the appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the said documents were necessary for a just decision of the case. This Court, therefore, may not interfere with the said conclusion.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - A S Naidu - Full Document
1