Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Wadi vs Amilal And Ors. on 12 July, 2002

Mossamat Chintamani Devi vs Lalan Chaubey on 25 July, 2024

10. The law with regard to production of the additional evidence has been crystallized by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and some of the decisions have been quoted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. By placing reliance on the decisions of Wadi Vs. Amilal and Ors. (supra), it is evident that apart from condition of Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) of the Code, Order 41 Rule 27 1(b) provides that the appellate court has to give a finding that whether it requires document for pronouncement of judgment or for any other substantial cause. But, such requirement could be asserted at the final stage of the appeal and not at the time of pre-hearing. In Patna High Court C.Misc.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A K Jha - Full Document

Basudev Dutta @ Basudeo Dutta vs Edus Birdget Collette on 19 April, 2024

35) However, by the said finding this Court is not disapproving the order passed by the learned appellate court in entirety, rather, the learned Court has passed a justified order taking the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to be under Clause (aa) and no due diligence was shown. But while doing so, the learned appellate court has not taken into consideration the very import/object and intent of Clause (b) of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another (supra) and Wadi Vs. Amilal and Others (supra).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Geesu Lal Alias Gheesu Singh vs Noratmal Jain Thr Lrs on 31 March, 2017

In Wadi Vs. Amilal and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the proposition that invocation of clause (b) of Rule 27(1) does not depend upon vigilance or negligence of parties and certified copy of the mutation record which in the opinion of the Court throws light on the germane issue, is necessary for pronouncing the judgment. Thus, the above judgments are inapplicable.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(O&M;) Nathi Etc vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 1 February, 2019

(5) Vide award dated 07.03.2013, the Reference Court relied upon the judgment pertaining to village Kidawali, the lead case of which was Swaran Singh and which was duly exhibited as PW4/A to grant the same 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2019 23:19:00 ::: RFA No.1603 of 2011 -3- amount of compensation @ `25,42,000/-. It is pertinent to notice that another Reference Court vide award dated 04.01.2011 for village Lalpur had not taken into consideration the said award while deciding the 13 reference petitions on the ground that Lalpur was situated next to the Yamuna river. (6) Resultantly, the benefit of sale deed of village Kidawali was not granted and neither the sale instance pertaining to 14 kanals 6 marlas and the reference petitions were dismissed. It is in such circumstances the application for additional evidence has also been filed bringing to the notice that three village in question are situated adjoining to each other and therefore it is argued that the sale deed of adjoining village should be taken into consideration to assess the market value. Apart from that the sale exemplar of 4 marlas was also sought to be brought on record along with application for village Lalpur wherein land was sold @ `1,25,000/- to press for higher market rate. It is settled principle that additional evidence can be allowed where it is necessary for pronouncement of the judgment. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC provides that if the Appellate Court requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness examined. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments in Wadi Vs. Amilal & others 2004 (1) Scale 82, North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008 (8) SCC 511, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another 2012(8) SCC 148, Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman & others 2016 AIR (SC) 3139. The observations in North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur's case (supra) are as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Daljeet Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 29 March, 2019

A perusal of the award would also go on to show that the Reference Court also noted that the exact location of the sold land was not clear while referring to Exts.P-1 to P-3, which were post-dated having been sold on 26.08.2008 but as noticed, there was a considerable increase in the market price, as such. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence which has been sought to be brought on record, which is also by way of site-plans, showing the other land in the locality including the one acquired for the Bus Stand and for the Police Lines, would only help this Court in adjudicating the issue in a proper perspective. Accordingly, the applications for additional evidence are 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -5- liable to be allowed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, as it would help the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Wadi Vs. Amilal & others 2004 (1) Scale 82, North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008 (8) SCC 511, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman & others 2016 AIR (SC) 3139, for the said proposition. No prejudice, as such, would be caused to the State also as the awards could not have been produced at an earlier point of time, since Annexure A-1 is for the notification dated 30.06.2006 and was passed on 21.03.2011 whereas Annexure A-5 has been at a subsequent point of time, passed on 06.03.2014, for the notification dated 02/10.12.2002. Keeping in view the fact that the said award was also passed at a subsequent point of time, it cannot be said that the landowners were filling up the lacunas and to fill up their weak points. Accordingly, the said applications for additional evidence are allowed and the documents annexed with the applications are taken on record, for necessary adjudication.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ajit Singh And Ors vs Chief Manager And Anr on 7 February, 2020

7. Keeping in view the fact that the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court were passed on subsequent date after the award of the Reference Court, the application for additional evidence is liable to be allowed as it is a relevant piece of evidence and is of the same revenue estate. The application falls within the para meters of Order 41 Rule 27 and would also be helpful for this Court to pronounce judgment as per the said provisions. Reference can also be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in Wadi vs. Amilal and others, 2002 (2) PLJ 230; K.R. Mohan Reddy vs. M/s. Net Work Inc Rep Tr. MD, 2007 (10) SCR 872; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Dass (D) through L.Rs., 2008 (8) SCC 511 and UOI vs. K.V. Lakshman and others, 2016 (13) SCC 124 regarding this aspect.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next