Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Alok Agarwal v. S.C.Agarwal & Others - WRIT - C No. 10640 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5049 (3 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10640 of 2006

Alok Agarwal Vs.  S.C.Agrawal and others


Heard Shri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.S.Misra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and Shri A.N.Tewari, learned counsel for respondent no.9.

Earlier matter was brought to this court in the form of F.A.F.O. No.1742 of 2003.  I decided the said appeal on 14.9.2005 and remanded the matter back to appellate court to decide the appeal afresh.   I also observed that:

"In case  any party applies for adducing any additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. then the said application shall be decided by the lower appellate court in accordance with law."

Thereafter respondent no.3- Arun Agarwal filed an application before the lower appellate court(Additional District Judge Court No.13, Allahabad) for adducing additional evidence.  On 14.2.2006 said application was allowed.  Appellate court on 14.2.2006 passed the order that:

"Accordingly, application no.350-Ga is allowed and respondent i.e. Arun Agarwal is granter permission to adduce evidence for proving the Will."

Prior to the said order through another order respondent no.3 - Arun Agarwal had been permitted to file certified copy of the Will deed.

The order dated 14.2.2006 is challenged through this writ petition.  The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is that mis-interpreting  my earlier order dated 14.9.2005 respondents will go on filing applications for adducing additional evidence.  Learned counsel for respondents have categorically stated that no further application for adducing additional evidence will be filed by them.

Accordingly, it is directed that no further application for adducing additional evidence on behalf of the respondents shall be permitted to be filed.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he does not want to file any additional evidence.

Accordingly, appellate court is directed to take additional evidence strictly in accordance with its order dated 14.2.2006 on record expeditiously and decide the appeal also very expeditiously.  No further application for adducing additional evidence by any party shall be entertained.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.