Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: The Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the application filed for challenging the order of the District Court whereunder the appellate court rejected the application of the petitioner-appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to admit five documents as additional evidence.

The facts of the case are that plaintiff-petitioner instituted a Civil Suit praying for damages. The suit was dismissed. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to admit five documents as additional evidence was filed during pendency of the appeal. The respondents-opposite parties objected to the same. The appellate court rejected the application. Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate court was not justified in rejecting the said application before hearing of the appeal.

The Court relying on the case of Sankar Pradhan v. Premananda Pradhan, 2015 (II) CLR 583 held that the legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but “when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent.” The petition was thus allowed. [Gopal Krushna Panda v. Utkal Grameen Bank, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 34, Order dated 28-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

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]