Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Section 107 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
"36. The Appellate Court may permit additional
evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in
this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled,
as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the
3 (2012)8-SCC-148
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:08 :::
9 of 22 CHS.895.2011
provision does not apply, when on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a
satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the
discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such
a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed
by the limitation specified in the Rule itself."
State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957
In State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan D.
Srivastava1, the Supreme Court observed as follows :
The Amending Act, 1897
M.M. Quasim vs Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors on 7 April, 1981
On behalf of the Respondent it is submitted that since the
alleged writing dated 10 February 2011 was not in existence on 15
December 2010 when the order of the learned Single Judge appealed
against was passed, such a document would not fall within the
purview of Order XLI, Rule 27(1)(aa) of the Code. Having
considered this objection of the Respondent, we are unable to
subscribe to the submission. As we have noted earlier, Clause(aa) of
Rule 27(1) is in two parts. The first part applies where it is
established that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:11:08 :::
17 of 22 CHS.895.2011
evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking to
produce it. The second part envisages a situation where the additional
evidence could not after the exercise of due diligence be produced
wien the decree appealed against was passed. That additional
evidence inviting the Court's attention to a subsequent event can be
produced under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code was enunciated in a
judgment of the Supreme Court in M.M.Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal
Sharma and Others4. We are not inclined to circumscribe, by a
process of judicial interpretation, the ambit of Rule 27(1)(aa) as
suggested by the counsel for the Respondent.
K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963
These principles were reiterated by a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in K.Venkataramiah Vs. A.Seetharama Reddy and
others2, where the Court held as follows :
1