Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Germanjit @ Jermanjit Singh And Others vs Malkit Kaur And Others on 4 January, 2012 cites

Ajay Mohan & Ors vs H.N. Rai & Ors on 12 December, 2007

10. So far as the authorities Ajay Mohan & Ors' case (supra) and Barkat Ali & Anr.'s case (supra) are concerned, these authorities are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. The ratio of law laid down in both these authorities is that if the matter has been decided by the Court and thereafter the same point cannot be re-agitated before the same Court by filing second petition. The appeal is the continuation of suit. The defendants/appellants now respondents wanted to produce material evidence, which goes to the root of the case. The learned First Appellate Court, after considering the submissions made by both the sides have exercised the jurisdiction by allowing the application as envisaged under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The counsel for the petitioners could not point out that the first Appellate Court has committed any illegality or has Civil Revision No. 8038 of 2011 5 exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing the application. The plaintiffs now petitioners have produced register of deed writer, who has stated that he is not maintaining any register. The defendants/appellants now respondents wanted to prove the fact that he was maintaining a register. According to the case of plaintiffs Harbhaajn Singh was the Lamberdar of village Chawinda Devi but the defendants have produced information received under RTI that Harbhajan Singh never remained Lamberdar of the said village. The other allegation of the defendants is that another Balbir Singh appeared instead witness mentioned on the agreement. The reason given by the defendants-respondents that not producing the evidence before the trial court at an early stage was that they are residents of USA and on that account the said evidence could not be produced. Another circumstance, which goes in favour of the defendants/respondents is that before the trial court also an application for additional evidence was moved which was wrongly declined by the trial Court. All these questions raised by the defendants/respondents go to the root of the case and as such the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the application for additional evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 33 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Barkat Ali & Anr vs Badri Narain (D) By Lrs on 6 February, 2008

10. So far as the authorities Ajay Mohan & Ors' case (supra) and Barkat Ali & Anr.'s case (supra) are concerned, these authorities are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. The ratio of law laid down in both these authorities is that if the matter has been decided by the Court and thereafter the same point cannot be re-agitated before the same Court by filing second petition. The appeal is the continuation of suit. The defendants/appellants now respondents wanted to produce material evidence, which goes to the root of the case. The learned First Appellate Court, after considering the submissions made by both the sides have exercised the jurisdiction by allowing the application as envisaged under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The counsel for the petitioners could not point out that the first Appellate Court has committed any illegality or has Civil Revision No. 8038 of 2011 5 exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing the application. The plaintiffs now petitioners have produced register of deed writer, who has stated that he is not maintaining any register. The defendants/appellants now respondents wanted to prove the fact that he was maintaining a register. According to the case of plaintiffs Harbhaajn Singh was the Lamberdar of village Chawinda Devi but the defendants have produced information received under RTI that Harbhajan Singh never remained Lamberdar of the said village. The other allegation of the defendants is that another Balbir Singh appeared instead witness mentioned on the agreement. The reason given by the defendants-respondents that not producing the evidence before the trial court at an early stage was that they are residents of USA and on that account the said evidence could not be produced. Another circumstance, which goes in favour of the defendants/respondents is that before the trial court also an application for additional evidence was moved which was wrongly declined by the trial Court. All these questions raised by the defendants/respondents go to the root of the case and as such the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the application for additional evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 32 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1