The High Court of Bombay, in civil appellate jurisdiction, rejected an application for production of additional evidence u/s Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, holding that the explanation offered was invalid and no substantial cause was made out.
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.
-: 1 :-
902.cac.5.12
ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2012 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 640 OF 2011
M/s. Haute Couture (Regd.) partnership firm and others .. Applicants
Vs.
Smt. Jyoti Prabhakar Kharwandikar and others .. Respondents
Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.R.A.Thorat i/b Mr.S.M.Kazi, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. P.S.Dani i/b Mr. H.P.Nagvekar, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 & 2.
CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 04th February, 2014
P.C. :
. Heard Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the
applicants and Mr.P.S.Dani ,learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 at length.
C.P.C. for production of additional evidence i.e. Exhibit A to E.
Mr.Dhakephalkar submitted that insofar as the premises at Sylvester
are concerned, they are owned by one Alex Paul Fernandes who had, pursuant to an agreement of tenancy dated 03/03/1964, given on lease/tenancy to one Anjanikumar Company Private Limited. The said
company were all throughout in possession of the suit premises since
-: 2 :-
902.cac.5.12
1964 and by a deed of surrender of tenancy dated 30/06/2005, the said company had surrendered the tenancy. He, therefore, submitted that in the first place, the premises in Sylvester building were used merely for correspondence purpose and secondly, in any case, the said premises are surrendered to the landlord and therefore, are not available.
902.cac.5.12
-: 3 :-
(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 148, the Apex Court has considered Order 41 Rule 27 from paragraph 36 onwards and observed in paragraphs 40 & 41 as under:
902.cac.5.12
-: 4 :-
party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause” within the meaning of this Rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal.”
additional evidence. Hence, Civil Application is rejected.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether additional evidence u/s Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC can be produced where the explanation given was that pleadings were uncontested?
Whether the documents sought were available at the time of evidence of the opponent?
Whether the documents establish business use of premises to satisfy the requirements for additional evidence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Ibrahim UddinReferred¶29
(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 148
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
