Arjan Singh Alias Puran vs Kartar Singh And Others on 2 March, 1951
While relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjan Singh's case (supra), this Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment held as under: -
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Chaman Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 6 March, 1970
11. Similarly, in the case of Chaman Lal and Anr. v. The State of Punjab, (1974)76 P.L.R. 8 (S.N.); 1974 Revenue Law Reporter 10, this Court held that production of additional evidence can only be permitted when the Court examined the evidence already existing on the record.
State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957
15. The last submission in this regard pertained to the fact that the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 912, has held that the lacuna cannot be allowed to be filled up. However, the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code has been widened.
Jaipur Development Authority vs Smt. Kailashwati Devi on 2 September, 1997
Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority v. Smt. Kailashwati Devi, (1997-3)117 P.LR. 880 (S.C.), considered this aspect and in paragraph 6 of the judgment held as under:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sucha Singh vs Gurnam Singh And Anr. on 20 March, 1972
In the case of Sucha Singh v. Gurnam Singh, 1972 Revenue Law Reporter, 456, this Court concluded that this is not a matter of routine but the case must fall within the strict provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. But as would be noticed hereinafter, it cannot be termed in the present case that it was simply at the pleasure of the Appellate Authority. As pointed above, if the Appellate Authority finds that evidence is necessary to pronounce the judgment, additional evidence can be recorded. That seemingly prevailed with the Appellate Authority. It is true that in so many words such fact has not been recorded but the Appellate Authority relying upon the past precedents proceeded to allow additional evidence. Omission of a particular line or a paragraph will not permit this court to undo what has been done, particularly when one read the reasons for allowing the same.
Buta Singh And Another vs Jota Singh And Another on 23 July, 1990
14. The contention further, as pointed out above, was that additional evidence could be produced in the trial Court with due diligence and that has not been done. Reliance was placed on the decision rendered Jay this court in the case of Municipal Committee, Sonepat v. Ram Ditta Mal, 1983 Haryana Rent Reporter, 331 and in the case of Buta Singh and Anr. v. Jota Singh, (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 510. However, these particular decisions are confined to the controversy when the case falls under Order 41 Rule 27(1 )(aa) of the Code. If the Court requires the same for the pronouncement of the judgment as in the present case, in that even the cited decisions will have little role to play. Therefore, the said contention as such must fail.
1