Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)
Varadhan vs M.Govindasamy on 5 November, 2009 cites

Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004

He also cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf V. Government of India and others (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 779 at 783 wherein it is observed that 'the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is very clear to the effect that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, unless they have shown that in spite of due diligence, they could not produce such documents and such documents are required to enable the court to promote proper judgment etc.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

Jayaramdas & Sons vs Mirza Rafaullah Baig & Ors on 23 March, 2004

16.On the side of the respondent/defendant reliance is placed on the decision in Jayaramdas and others V. Mirza Rafatullah Baig and others (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 507 at page 508 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'the case of the appellants for production of additional evidence falls within Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa). It would have been better if such ground was set out specifically in the application so that the opposite party could have had an opportunity of meeting the plea and the first appellate court could also have had the provisions of clause (aa) of sub-rule(1) in its mind for dealing with the appellants' application. However, the ends of justice demand the additional evidence being allowed to be produced dehors the deficiency in the application filed by the appellants. However, the documents shall be admitted in evidence by the first appellate court, subject to payment of Rs.5000 by way of costs by the appellants.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 49 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1