Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)
Shiju K Samuel vs Anil Kumar Jain on 4 September, 2025 cites

State Of Rajasthan And Anr. vs Triloki Nath Sahani And Anr. on 31 July, 2001

"4. Learned Sr. Advocate Shri B.L. Pavecha submitted that the application under section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code was not required to be considered and decided in isolation without hearing the appeal on merits. It is submitted that it is the established practice under the civil law that as and when an application under Order 41, Rule 27 is filed at appellate stage for taking any additional evidence then such application is required to be heard along with appeal itself and after hearing the appeal on merits such application requires adjudication. Same course 6 should have been adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the application moved by the application during the pendency of the criminal appeal. He has drawn attention of Court toward provisions of section 391, Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that opinion regarding necessity of such additional evidence for determination of the appeal can only be formed after hearing the appeal on merits. He has relied upon the cases of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani, (2001) 10 SCC 619 and also case of Khemchand v. Government of M.P., 1972 MPLJ 524: 1972 JLJ 482.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 67 - Full Document

Khemchand Rajmal vs Chief Secretary, Madhya Bharat Govt. ... on 14 December, 1956

"4. Learned Sr. Advocate Shri B.L. Pavecha submitted that the application under section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code was not required to be considered and decided in isolation without hearing the appeal on merits. It is submitted that it is the established practice under the civil law that as and when an application under Order 41, Rule 27 is filed at appellate stage for taking any additional evidence then such application is required to be heard along with appeal itself and after hearing the appeal on merits such application requires adjudication. Same course 6 should have been adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the application moved by the application during the pendency of the criminal appeal. He has drawn attention of Court toward provisions of section 391, Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that opinion regarding necessity of such additional evidence for determination of the appeal can only be formed after hearing the appeal on merits. He has relied upon the cases of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani, (2001) 10 SCC 619 and also case of Khemchand v. Government of M.P., 1972 MPLJ 524: 1972 JLJ 482.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963

―4. It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526 pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it Judgment, it still considered that in the interest quired to enabling which remained was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to enable it to pronounce the obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC can be invoked. So 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 the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the 5 appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 297 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1