Writ application filed by a disappointed plaintiff challenging an order of the court below. The lower court rejected a prayer for adducing additional evidence. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the application.
The application for certiorati to quash the order declining to admit additional evidence was dismissed.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13328 of 2013 dt.17-11-2016
2
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RAJESH KUMAR SINHA For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 17-11-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The plaintiff in the court below after dismissal of the suit
for partition is the petitioner in this application and is assailing the order passed by the learned court below on the petition filed by respondent no. 4 in the appeal for adducing a document by way of additional evidence.
There is no explanation either in the present application or in the learned court below as to why did not file or join the petition in the court below itself. It also does not appear that the prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff in the court below after the petition filed by the respondent no. 4 Dwarika Prasad, to take the said document by way of additional evidence. This aspect becomes material in view of the assertion by the respondent no. 4 that the said document to be adduced by way of additional evidence was handed over to the respondent no. 4 by Hari Lal who is respondent no. 7 in the appellate court below. It is also apparent that the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.13328 of 2013 dt.17-11-2016
3
respondent no. 7 Hari Lal has denied to have made respondent no. 4 at any point of time or to have handed over the said document. The said respondent no. 7 Hari Lal has also denied his signature over the said document.
The learned court below, after considering the facts and circumstances, has turned down the prayer on behalf of the respondents in the court for adducing the said document in evidence as mentioned. The respondent no. 4 has not come to challenge the said order before this Court. Even otherwise also, this Court does not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order justifying its interdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J)
Devendra/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the lower court's order declining to admit additional evidence under Article 227.
Gokhul Prasad Son Of Late Durga Prasad
Mohan Lal Son Of Durga Prasad
Rukmini Devi Wife Of Monan Lal
Bishun Lal
Dwarika Prasad
Uma Devi Wife Of Kapildeo Prajapat
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
