Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Kongara Sathyamma vs Md. Athara Bee on 3 March, 2025 cites

Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012

"25. 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 XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 1364 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande vs Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta . on 6 February, 2019

9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the documents filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.254 of 2019 were subsequent to the date of filing of the suit. The revision petitioner in her affidavit in I.A.No.254 of 2019 stated that she was not aware of the importance of the document, hence, did not inform the counsel on record. It was totally a vague reason, which could not be considered in the eyes of law. The petitioner failed to show any valid reason to receive the documents. The documents filed by the petitioner could not be considered in the appeal suit as only the possession as on the date of filing of the suit was only material and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and another 4 on the aspect that in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, possession as on the date of suit was a must for grant of permanent injunction. When the first respondent-plaintiff failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the property as on the date of the suit, he was not entitled for the decree for permanent injunction. 9.1. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that a party could not produce any additional evidence at the appellate stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 39 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Muncipal Corporation For Greater ... vs Lala Pancham Of Bombay & Others on 1 October, 1964

27. Under Order XLI , Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence. [Vide: LalaPancham& Ors. (supra) ].
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 287 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Haji Mohammed Ishaq Md. Sk. Mohammed & 3 ... vs Mohamed Iqbal & Mohamed Ali & Ors on 4 April, 1978

26. 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 Wd. S. K. Mohammed & Ors. v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co., AIR 1978 SC 798).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 117 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

S. Rajagopal vs C. M. Armugam & Ors on 3 May, 1968

28. 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. ManbodhanLalSrivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam& Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 94 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1   2 Next