Skip to content


Mohd. Ayub and anr. Vs. Viith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.W.P. No. 40402 of 1999
Judge
Reported in2002(2)AWC911
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 41, Rule 27
AppellantMohd. Ayub and anr.
RespondentViith Additional District Judge, Allahabad and ors.
Appellant AdvocateA.K. Srivastava, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateManoj Kumar Singh, Adv. and ;S.C.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
civil - admission of evidence - order 41 rule 27 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - petitioner's application for filing further evidence was rejected by court without providing any reason for rejection - it is necessary for court to record the reason for rejecting the submission of evidence - documents allowed to be admitted as evidence. - .....by the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of order xll, rule 27 due to which the documents filed along with this application 82c are not worthy to be accepted as additional evidence. the appellate court has arrived at the conclusion that the filing of the additional evidence are not such which may attract the provisions of order xli, rule 27 and the appellate court has observed that the documents filed along with the application 82c were filed only with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal. the appellate court without recording any finding rejected the application 82c which suffers from manifest error of law as to why provisions of order xli, rule 27 are not attracted to the application filed by the petitioner.3. in view of the aforesaid, thepetition deserves to.....
Judgment:

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.9.1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby an application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27. C.P.C. 82C and List 83A filed by the petitioner have been rejected by the appellate court.

2. Petitioner in his application has not given reasons for not filing the evidence during the trial and has not given reason to the satisfaction of the appellate court for not filing the same before the trial court. The respondents have filed their objection to the said application wherein they have stated that the affidavit filed by the petitioners along with their application is wholly false and this application filed by the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of Order XLl, Rule 27 due to which the documents filed along with this application 82C are not worthy to be accepted as additional evidence. The appellate court has arrived at the conclusion that the filing of the additional evidence are not such which may attract the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 and the appellate court has observed that the documents filed along with the application 82C were filed only with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal. The appellate court without recording any finding rejected the application 82C which suffers from manifest error of law as to why provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 are not attracted to the application filed by the petitioner.

3. In view of the aforesaid, thepetition deserves to be allowed and ishereby allowed and the order dated4.9.1999 (Annexure-6 to the writpetition) passed by the respondentNo. I is quashed. The documents filedalong with application 82C shall beadmitted. The appeal be decidedpreferably within six months from thedate of presentation of certified copyof this order before the respondentNo. 1.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //