Writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting prayer for additional evidence. Court found plaintiff failed to disclose reasons for non-production and did not interfere.
Discarded petition dismissed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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 PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11791 of 2013
=========================================================== Bhagwat Ram, Son of Late Minay Ram, resident of Mohalla – Saharsa Basti, P.S. + District - Saharsa
.... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar through the Collector, Saharsa .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. For the Respondent : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 09-11-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The plaintiff, who has filed the appeal in the court below, is the petitioner in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legal sustainability of the impugned order rejecting his prayer for adducing additional evidence.
The fact is not in dispute that the document, which was sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence, was a public document. However, the plaintiff-appellant in the court below did not disclose the reasons which prevented him from adducing the said document in evidence at the stage of trial of the suit. The appellate court below has considered the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the prayer made by the plaintiff-appellant was not tenable in law.
After considering the submissions and the facts and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11791 of 2013 dt.09-11-2016
2/2
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J.)
Kundan
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 21.12.16 |
| Transmission Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate court's order rejecting the prayer for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC via Article 227 writ jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhagwat Ram
The State of Bihar through the Collector, Saharsa
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
