In a writ petition challenging an appellate court's rejection of applications for handwriting verification of a deceased person's signature, this Court held that admitting such evidence in appeal without scrutiny violated the strict provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Discretion was exercised properly.
None. Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 200.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3981/2008
Shri.Anil Hari Joshi
Petitioner
Vs.
Smt.Vasudha Narhar Deodhar
Respondent
Shri.R.M.Purandare for the petitioner
CORAM : A.A.Sayed,J.
Date : 3rd July,2008
P.C.
2
Rule 27 envisage that the party shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence ,whether oral or documentary ,in the Appellate Court unless in certain cases which have been set out .One of them is that the party seeking to produce additional evidence,establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence,such evidence ,was not within his knowledge or could not,after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Civil Court below could accept evidence of handwriting verification in an appeal contrary to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Whether there was any substance in the petitioner's plea that such evidence was not available at the time of trial despite due diligence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri.Anil Hari Joshi
Smt.Vasudha Narhar Deodhar
A.A.Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
