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


Dharmendra Kumar Janta Laghu Shiksha Samiti Satguru Murji v. Ram Lal - WRIT - C No. 12788 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4950 (2 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. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12788 of 2006

Dharmendra Kumar Janta Laghu

Shiksha Samiti Satguru Mujri & others                           .................Petitioners


Ram Lal                                                                          .............Respondents

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition challenges the order dated 07.02.2006 whereby the appellate court has taken certain documents filed by the respondent appellant as additional peace of evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the documents, which have been admitted by the appellate court in second part of its order, are those papers, which had earlier been rejected by that court vide order dated 11.12.1995 (Annexure No. 4)  and there was no justification on the part of the appellate court thereafter to admit those papers as additional peace of evidence. The impugned order states that the documents sought to be admitted under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. by the appellant were relevant documents for just and proper disposal of the appeal and as such they have been taken on record. In the earlier order while rejecting the prayer of the appellant for admitting the documentary evidence at the appellate stage, the court below held that no grounds were made for admitting those papers and that is why it was rejected. Some writ petition filed against that order has been dismissed as infructuous by this court.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the respondent appellant at the earlier stage did not make out proper ground in his application under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. (Annexure No. 3) to admit those papers, the court had rejected it but subsequent application is a detailed one and all those grounds have been stated therein, which made the court below to admit those papers.

A perusal of these two applications makes it evident that the earlier application appeared to the court below as groundless and in that view of the matter the prayer for taking additional evidence of the appellant respondent  was rejected. Since in the present application elaborate grounds have been mentioned for admitting those papers, the court below had justifiably found the documents to be relevant for just and proper disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the order, as such, does not appear to be erroneous as to warrant an interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court.

The writ petition having no force is hereby dismissed.




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.