Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Section 527 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
In A. Meiazhagan v. Managarkkarasi (supra), the Hon'ble
Madras High Court in context of challenge to ex-parte decree in Appeal
considered the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 and noted the decision
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (supra) to
hold that without any pleadings before the Trial Court, reception of
documents in the appeal stage will not assist the Appellant. It further
held that without resorting to Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC by showing
Sairaj 37 of 49
First Appeal No. 1546 of 2010 (f).doc
sufficient cause to set aside ex parte decree, the Appellant cannot take
recourse of Order 41 Rule 27 to introduce evidence without any
pleadings before the Trial Court.
Syed Abdul Khader vs Rami Reddy And Ors. on 29 November, 1978
(Vide K. Venkataramiah v. A.
Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526], Municipal
Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham [AIR 1965
SC 1008], Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal [(1975) 3 SCC
698 : AIR 1975 SC 479] and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami
Reddy [(1979) 2 SCC 601 : AIR 1979 SC 553] .)
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. [(1978) 2 SCC 493 :
State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957
39. It is not the business of the appellate court to
supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the
other in the lower court. Hence, in the absence of
satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the
evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should
not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of
remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the
indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence
under this Rule. So a party who had ample opportunity
to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed
to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it
admitted in appeal. (Vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal
Srivastava [AIR 1957 SC 912] and S. Rajagopal v. C.M.
Armugam [AIR 1969 SC 101] .)
S. Rajagopal vs C. M. Armugam & Ors on 3 May, 1968
39. It is not the business of the appellate court to
supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the
other in the lower court. Hence, in the absence of
satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the
evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should
not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of
remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the
indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence
under this Rule. So a party who had ample opportunity
to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed
to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it
admitted in appeal. (Vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal
Srivastava [AIR 1957 SC 912] and S. Rajagopal v. C.M.
Armugam [AIR 1969 SC 101] .)