Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J., allowed a petition filed against the order of District Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for acceptance of documents as additional evidence.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners instituted a suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), for a declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. They then filed an application for additional evidence. The Court rejected the same. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the application for additional evidence can be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. But the Court had rejected the same before hearing of the appeal. The question that was up for consideration of the High Court was whether the Appellate Court would be justified in allowing the application for additional evidence before hearing of the appeal.

The Court relied on the case of Sankar Pradhan v. Premananda Pradhan, 2015(II) CLR 583, wherein it was held that the legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion was not whenever before the appeal was heard a party applied to adduce fresh evidence, but “when on examining the evidence as there stood some inherent lacuna or defect which became apparent.”The Court thus allowed the petition. [Kalandi Rout v. Bipin Swain, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 20, decided on 15-01-2019]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.