Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Muthuswamy Goundar vs Ramaswamy Goundar on 16 May, 2007
7.Continuing further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cites the decision of this Court in Muthuswamy Gounder and others V. Ramaswamy Goundar (2007) 4 MLJ 49 at page 50 wherein it is held that 'an application seeking production of additional evidence at the appellate stage has to be decided along with the appeal and not separately.'
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
He also cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf V. Government of India and others (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 779 at 783 wherein it is observed that 'the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is very clear to the effect that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, unless they have shown that in spite of due diligence, they could not produce such documents and such documents are required to enable the court to promote proper judgment etc.'
Muzaffar Ali vs Dasaram on 12 January, 2009
8.On the side of the revision petitioner reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muzaffar Ali V. Dasaram (2009) 6 MLJ 1137 at 1138 (SC) wherein 'the Hon'ble High Court has been requested to decide the second appeal along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code on merits within a period of three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order. While deciding the same, the High Court shall also consider the reasons for rejection of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code given by the Appellate Court.'
K.R.Mohan Reddy vs M/S Net Work Inc Rep.Tr.M.D on 26 September, 2007
9.Another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R.Mohan Reddy V. Net Work INC. Rep. T.R.M.D. (2008) 1 MLJ 1253 (SC) is cited on the side of the revision petitioner to the effect that 'the Power of the Appellate Court to pass an Order under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to admit additional evidence in limited. For exercising its jurisdiction thereunder, the Appellate Court must arrive at a finding that one or the other conditions enumerated thereunder is satisfied. A good reason must also to be shown as to why the evidence was not produced in the trial Court.'
Land Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976
11.Moreover, he relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore V. H.Narayanaiah etc. AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2403 at page 2414 wherein it is held as below:
Basayya I. Mathad vs Rudrayya S. Mathad & Ors on 24 January, 2008
"It is clear that parties to the lis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as of course or routine but must satisfy the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a) & (aa). Admittedly, such recourse has not been resorted to neither by the party concerned nor adhered those principles by the High Court. Paragraph 3 of his order shows that the learned Judge verified the document produced on his direction without complying the mandate as provided under Rule 27 of Order 41. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Judge based on a document produced at the time of argument de hors to Rule 27 referred above cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In fact, sub-clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the reason for its admission. It is needless to mention that the High Court neither followed those conditions for production of additional evidence nor recorded the reason for basing reliance on the same."
Jayaramdas & Sons vs Mirza Rafaullah Baig & Ors on 23 March, 2004
16.On the side of the respondent/defendant reliance is placed on the decision in Jayaramdas and others V. Mirza Rafatullah Baig and others (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 507 at page 508 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'the case of the appellants for production of additional evidence falls within Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa). It would have been better if such ground was set out specifically in the application so that the opposite party could have had an opportunity of meeting the plea and the first appellate court could also have had the provisions of clause (aa) of sub-rule(1) in its mind for dealing with the appellants' application. However, the ends of justice demand the additional evidence being allowed to be produced dehors the deficiency in the application filed by the appellants. However, the documents shall be admitted in evidence by the first appellate court, subject to payment of Rs.5000 by way of costs by the appellants.'
K.V.Ramasamy vs K.V.Rahgavan on 4 August, 2009
17.The learned counsel for the respondent invites the attention of this Court to the decision in K.V.Ramasamy V. K.V.Rahgavan and 3 others 2009 (4) CTC 440 wherein it is held that 'word "shall" in Order 41, Rule 27 (2) of C.P.C. is directory and not mandatory and even if sufficient reasons have not been assigned for admission of additional evidence, such admission would not be vitiated and ultimate goal is to render justice and Court can admit important and necessary evidence in Appellate stage.'