Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GYASAN SINGH versus NATHEY AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gyasan Singh v. Nathey And Others - WRIT - C No. 25111 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9192 (9 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25111 of 2006

Gyasan Singh Vs. Nathey and others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner's application for filing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has been rejected by the appellate court and the same is under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel contends that a certified copy of sale deed is sought to be taken on record as additional peace of evidence through petitioner's application before the appellate court. That sale deed pertains to transfer of a land in favour of the petitioner's son, which has wrongly been included by the Commissioner in his report submitted in the trial court, in the area of petitioner's sahan land about which he has filed the suit. This sale deed would demonstrate the incorrectness of the Commissioner's observations in his report about the extent of disputed 'sahan' land. Learned counsel also contends that the document was very necessary for just disposal of controversies existing between the parties and the appellate court has illegally rejected the petitioner's prayer for admitting the same.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application of the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed without any support of affidavit. The document sought to be admitted is a certified copy of the sale deed executed by the vendor in favour of the petitioner's son. Therefore, there could not be any presumption that this document was not within the knowledge of the appellant petitioner. It also could not be presumed by the court below that the petitioner did not have any idea that the document would be relevant for showing the incorrectness of the Commissioner's report, which was filed before the disposal of the suit in the trial court. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appellate court has rejected this document and passed the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in the said order and the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

09.05.2006

gp/


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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