Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Darshan Singh vs Santokh Singh And Ors. on 21 January, 1997
16. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents submitted before me that on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed various issues and the parties had led evidence before the trial court. He further submitted that there was absolutely no reason as to why such a prayer was not made earlier either before the trial court or before the District Judge. Reliance was placed on Natha Singh and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner Taxation, Punjab and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1053, Smt. Chhotu v. Bijinder Kumar (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 282, Darshan Singh v. Santokh Singh (1997-2)1 16 P.L.R. 158, Amar Singh and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar (1973)7 5 PLR 761 and The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and Ors. MR 1965 SC 1008.
Gurdev Singh & Ors vs Mehnga Ram & Anr on 11 July, 1997
The authority JT 1997(7) SC 56 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, the learned Additional District Judge at the final hearing of the appeal had felt that the additional evidence was required to be produced as requested by the appellants by way of examining of a handwriting expert. The High Court vide impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC took the view that the order of the appellate court could not be sustained. It was under those circumstances that it was held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that approach of the High Court in revision at that interim stage, when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the Additional District Judge, was not justified and the High Court should not have interfered with the order which was within the jurisdiction of the appellate Court. It was further held by their lordships that if the order passed by the appellate court was wrong on merits, it would always be open for the respondents to challenge the same in accordance with law if an occasion arises to carry the matter in second appeal, after an appellate decree is passed but at the interim stage, the High Court should not have felt it convinced that the order was without jurisdiction. The law laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the said authority, in my opinion, would have no application to a case where the appellate court had refused to allow additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal in as much as in that eventuality, if the appeal is finally decided against the party seeking production of additional evidence and if the aggrieved party files second appeal in the High Court, the aggrieved party would have again to seek production of additional evidence, either by challenging the order vide which the application for additional evidence was rejected by the first appellate court or by moving a separate application in the High Court for production of additional evidence. On the other hand, if the additional evidence is allowed by the first appellate court and ultimately the appeal is decided against the party who was opposing the production of additional evidence, that party would have the occasion to file second appeal in the High Court and also to challenge the order of the first appellate court allowing the production of additional evidence and if the High Court is convinced, while hearing second appeal that no case was made out for the first appellate court to have allowed the production of additional evidence, the High Court would have the power to set aside that order of the first appellate court and to ignore the evidence which was produce by the other party by way of additional evidence in the appeal.
K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963
In K. Venkataramiah v. A, Seetharama Reddy and others, AIR 1963 SC 1526, a Constitutional Bench of their lordships of the Supreme Court had held that under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate court has the power to allow the additional evidence not only it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment but also for any other substantial cause. It was further held that there may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of record as it is, and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Muncipal Corporation For Greater ... vs Lala Pancham Of Bombay & Others on 1 October, 1964
The authorities (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 282 (supra) and (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 158 (supra) and (1973)75 PLR 761 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants respondents, would also have no application to the facts of the present case, in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 1526 (supra).
Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy vs Billa Sanjeeva Reddy on 28 January, 1994
15. Coming on merits, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-petitioners submitted before me that in view of the certificate dated 17.1.2000 issued by the Director Incharge, Forensic Science Laboratory, the question of erasurs on the disputed documents could be determined through scientific method and this facility was not earlier available with any Forensic Science Laboratory and it was only some time in the year 1999 that this facility became available with the Forensic Science laboratory of Government of N.C.T. of Delhi. For this reason, the plaintiffs-petitioners could not get the disputed documents examined from the point of view of erasurs. It was submitted that similarly the question of embossing and indentations also could be got determined with scientific method from the said Laboratory. It was submitted that if on account of development in science, the disputed documents could be got examined from the laboratory having lights and scientific instruments/equipment to find the truth, the law of procedure would not come in the way of the Courts to allow the plaintiffs-petitioners to get the disputed document re-examined from the laboratory having latest equipment, by way of additional evidence. It was further submitted that for the same reasons if the record from the Income Tax department was summoned so as to compare the photostat copy of the agreement with the original document produced in the court, it would also advance the ends of justice and would enable the court to pronounce the judgment and to do justice between the parties, especially when it was not in the knowledge of plaintiffs-petitioners that such a facility had become available in India. It was further submitted that there would be no malafide on the part of the plaintiffs-petitioners to ask for the additional evidence and to get the matter delayed, when the plaintiffs themselves have filed the suit for specific performance and also for vacant possession of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Anr. v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors.. 1994 (4) S.C.C. 659.
Natha Singh & Ors vs The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, ... on 11 March, 1976
16. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents submitted before me that on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed various issues and the parties had led evidence before the trial court. He further submitted that there was absolutely no reason as to why such a prayer was not made earlier either before the trial court or before the District Judge. Reliance was placed on Natha Singh and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner Taxation, Punjab and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1053, Smt. Chhotu v. Bijinder Kumar (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 282, Darshan Singh v. Santokh Singh (1997-2)1 16 P.L.R. 158, Amar Singh and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar (1973)7 5 PLR 761 and The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and Ors. MR 1965 SC 1008.
Amar Singh And Ors. vs Ashok Kumar on 3 April, 1973
16. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents submitted before me that on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed various issues and the parties had led evidence before the trial court. He further submitted that there was absolutely no reason as to why such a prayer was not made earlier either before the trial court or before the District Judge. Reliance was placed on Natha Singh and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner Taxation, Punjab and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1053, Smt. Chhotu v. Bijinder Kumar (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 282, Darshan Singh v. Santokh Singh (1997-2)1 16 P.L.R. 158, Amar Singh and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar (1973)7 5 PLR 761 and The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and Ors. MR 1965 SC 1008.