Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy on 30 March, 2011
10. I have carefully perused the material on record and given
anxious consideration to the rival submissions canvassed
across the bar. The legal position, post the deletion of Order
XVIII Rule 17-A by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999,
was expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Velusamy
(supra). The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph
13, 14 and 19 are instructive and hence extracted below:
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
In Salem Advocates Bar Assn. case, it has been clarified
that on deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A which provided for
leading of additional evidence, the law existing before the
introduction of the amendment, i.e., 1st July, 2002, would
stand restored. The Rule was deleted by Amendment Act of
2002. Even before insertion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A, the
Court had inbuilt power to permit parties to produce evidence
not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in
spite of due diligence. Order XVIII Rule 17-A did not create any
new right but only clarified the position. Therefore, deletion of
Order 18 Rule 17-A does not disentitle production of evidence
at a later stage. On a party satisfying the Court that after
exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was
leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such
evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be
just.
1