Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

QAMARUDDIN versus BANK OF BARODA BAREILLY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Qamaruddin v. Bank Of Baroda Bareilly - SECOND APPEAL No. - 1069 of 1996 [2007] RD-AH 14777 (31 August 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The defendant has filed this Second Appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bareilly by which the Civil Appeal that had been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned IVth Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly dismissing the suit was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration in accordance with law after admitting the documents filed along with the Application 15(C) and after affording opportunity to the parties to produce further evidence.

The plaintiff, Bank of Baroda had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 35,000/- plus interest from the defendant on the ground that due to certain mistake in the entries, the said amount had been wrongly paid to the defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an application 15 (C) before the Appellate Court for bringing on record certain documents. The Appellate Court allowed the application filed under Order 41 Rule, 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the conditions stipulated therein were satisfied. However, as it was of the opinion that this would reopen the entire case and the evidence of both the parties would have to be recorded after admission of the document it remanded the case to the Trial Court for a decision after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the view taken by the First Appellate Court. His contention is that the application for bringing on record additional evidence could not have been allowed. The First Appellate Court has given cogent reasons for allowing the application as these documents had been given by the Bank to its counsel but were inadvertently not filed by the counsel.

There is, therefore, no merit in this Second Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage as no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

Date: 31.8.2007

NSC-1069


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.