Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Wadi vs Amilal And Ors. on 12 July, 2002
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.
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
11. In the light of discussion made here-in-above, the
impugned order could not be sustained. Hence, the order dated
26.11.2021 passed in Title Appeal No.73 of 2019 is set aside
and the matter is remanded to the learned first appellate court to
pass orders afresh on the petition dated 14.02.2020 of the
petitioners in the light of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.35 of 2022 dt. 25-07-2024
16/16
the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (supra).
The Corporation Of Madras And Another vs M. Parthasarathy And Others on 10 August, 2018
No.35 of 2022 dt. 25-07-2024
6/16
should be decided by appellate court remains no more res
integra and stands decided by three decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of North Eastern Railway
Administration Vs. Bhagwan Das, reported in (2008) 8 SCC
511 [Paras 13-17], Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. Vs.
Surendra Oil & Dal Mills, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 423 [para-
16] and Corporation of Madras & Anr. vs. M. Parthasarathy &
Ors, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 445 [Paras 11-15]. Learned
counsel further submitted that the learned first appellate court
passed the impugned order in a most mechanical way and
against the principles for consideration of additional evidence.
The learned first appellate court went on to assess the
genuineness and evidentiary value of the document when it was
not required to comment on the genuineness and evidentiary
value of the document sought to be brought on record. The
learned first appellate court did not test the said petition on the
touchstone of the principles laid down by various decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Rajasthan vs Dharam Veer Sahani on 20 April, 2015
Mr. Arora further relied on the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. T.
N. Sahani & Ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 619 wherein it
has been held that the application under Order 41 Rule 27
should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court
found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in
the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.35 of 2022 dt. 25-07-2024
8/16
the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that
stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that taking a
view on the application before hearing of the appeal would be
inappropriate.
Jagdish Prasad Patel(D) Thr. Lrs. vs Shivnath on 9 April, 2019
In the aforesaid decision in the case of Jagdish
Prasad Patel (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held
that even the documents were not produced before the trial court
nor were there reference to those documents in the pleadings, if
the said document has a direct bearing on the main issue in the
suit, the same has to be received as additional evidence.
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2022
07. Mr. Arora further submitted that the learned first
appellate court completely overlooked the principles as laid
down by the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Mr. Arora further submitted that though the petitioner explained
the circumstances under which the fact regarding execution of
the power of attorney came to their notice in January, 2020,
there was no occasion for the petitioners to plead the said fact in
the plaint in the year 2009. Moreover, the evidences are not
required to be pleaded and in the pleadings one has to place only
the facts of substance. Mr. Arora further submitted that the
learned first appellate court has committed further error of
jurisdiction by not appreciating the fact that the additional
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.35 of 2022 dt. 25-07-2024
11/16
evidence sought to be brought on record might be a relevant
piece of evidence which could help in adjudication process for
deciding the dispute between the parties and for this reason
absence of evidence in pleading is not a ground to reject the
prayer for bringing the additional evidence on record. The
learned first appellate court in most casual manner held that the
additional evidence sought to be brought on record is forged and
fabricated document and petitioners want to usurp the judgment
in their favour. Learned first appellate court further failed to
appreciate that the document was a piece of evidence for
deciding the issues between the parties and the said document
should be on record. Mr. Arora further submitted that the
learned first appellate court failed to appreciate that the
document in question is not only a registered document but also
more than 30 years old and hence no formal proof to prove the
same was necessary. There has been no challenge to
genuineness of the document from any of the quarter. Mr. Arora
further submitted that the power of attorney is an important and
crucial document and must be allowed to be brought on record
to enable the court come to a just finding. Furthermore, no
formal proof would be required as it is a 30 years old document.
Thus, learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.35 of 2022 dt. 25-07-2024
12/16
is not sustainable and the same be set aside allowing the petition
of the petitioners for bringing on record the additional evidence.
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others on 7 February, 1957
No.35 of 2022 dt. 25-07-2024
15/16
the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil & Ors, reported in AIR 1957 SC 363, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that all amendments ought to be
allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working
injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the
purpose of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties.
J. Balaji Singh vs Diwakar Cole & Ors on 24 April, 2017
(b). The Supreme Court has further held that Clause 1(b) says
that if the appellate court requires any document to be produced
or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce
judgment, it may allow such document to be produced or
witness to be examined. The requirement or need is that of the
appellate court bearing in mind that the interest of justice is
paramount. Mr. Arora further referred to the decision in the case
of J. Balaji Singh Vs. Diwakar Cole & Ors., reported in
(2017) 14 SCC 207, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
upheld the correctness of order of first appellate court
remanding the matter to the learned trial court when it found the
additional evidence to be material and necessary for proper
adjudication of the suit and also the reason why it could not be
filed during the trial.