JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SMT. KAILASHWATI DEVI

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SMT. KAILASHWATI DEVI

A party seeking to produce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC need not have adduced any evidence in the trial court, provided the conditions mentioned in the rule are satisfied; refusal based solely on non-production of trial evidence is not justified.

Parties
Appellant: Jaipur Development Authority; Respondent: Smt. Kailashwati Devi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Rajasthan High Court Order Rejecting Application for Additional Evidence in First Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Additional Evidence in Appeal, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
Civil Procedure Additional Evidence in Appeal Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaipur Development Authority

Appellant

Smt. Kailashwati Devi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Rajasthan High Court Order Rejecting Application for Additional Evidence in First Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC permits production of additional evidence by a party who produced no evidence in the trial court

Ratio Decidendi

A party seeking to produce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC need not have adduced any evidence in the trial court, provided the conditions mentioned in the rule are satisfied; refusal based solely on non-production of trial evidence is not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Rajasthan High Court set aside
  • Objection to maintainability of application for additional evidence overruled