Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Muncipal Corporation For Greater ... vs Lala Pancham Of Bombay & Others on 1 October, 1964
(Vide: K.
Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, AIR
1963 SC 1526; The Municipal Corp. of Greater
Bombay v. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008;
Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal, AIR 1975 SC 479;
and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy, AIR 1979
SC 553).
Soonda Ram And Anr. vs Shri Rameshwarlal And Anr. on 11 December, 1974
(Vide: K.
Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, AIR
1963 SC 1526; The Municipal Corp. of Greater
Bombay v. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008;
Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal, AIR 1975 SC 479;
and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy, AIR 1979
SC 553).
Syed Abdul Khader vs Rami Reddy And Ors. on 29 November, 1978
(Vide: K.
Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, AIR
1963 SC 1526; The Municipal Corp. of Greater
Bombay v. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008;
Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal, AIR 1975 SC 479;
and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy, AIR 1979
SC 553).
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
36. The general principle is that the Appellate
Court should not travel outside the record of the
lower court and cannot take any evidence in
appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule
27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take
rt
additional evidence in exceptional
circumstances. 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, provision
does not apply, when on the basis of 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.
Wadi vs Amilal And Ors. on 12 July, 2002
In Wadi vs. Amilal and Others, (2015)1 SCC
677, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
Laxmidevamma & Ors vs Ranganath & Ors on 20 January, 2015
28. Reliance is placed in Laxmidevamma and
Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held:
Haji Mohammed Ishaq Md. Sk. Mohammed & 3 ... vs Mohamed Iqbal & Mohamed Ali & Ors on 4 April, 1978
37. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily
allow new evidence to be adduced in order to
enable a party to raise a new point in appeal.
Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of
proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the
onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to
produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a
case, pronounce judgment against him and does
not require any additional evidence to enable it
to pronounce judgment. (Vide Haji Mohammed
Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co., AIR
1978 SC 798).
K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963
(Vide: K.
Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy, AIR
1963 SC 1526; The Municipal Corp. of Greater
Bombay v. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008;
Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal, AIR 1975 SC 479;
and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy, AIR 1979
SC 553).
1