SURJIT SINGH & ORS. versus GURWANT KAUR & ORS.

SURJIT SINGH & ORS. versus GURWANT KAUR & ORS.

Additional evidence sought to be produced at appellate stage was neither clinching nor essential for pronouncement of judgment; plaintiffs were granted numerous opportunities but were not diligent; order allowing additional evidence by appellate court was a misapplication of Order XLI Rule 27 (1)(b) and was improper in view of judicial propriety.

Parties
Appellant: Surjit Singh & Ors.; Respondent: Gurwant Kaur & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of High Court Affirming Additional Evidence Admitted at Appellate Stage
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, Additional Evidence, Specific Performance
Civil Procedure Order XLI Rule 27 CPC Additional Evidence Specific Performance

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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surjit Singh & Ors.

Appellant

Gurwant Kaur & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of High Court Affirming Additional Evidence Admitted at Appellate Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellate court erred in allowing production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC after rejection at trial and in civil revision
  2. 2 Whether judicial propriety prevents reception of same additional evidence rejected previously

Ratio Decidendi

Additional evidence sought to be produced at appellate stage was neither clinching nor essential for pronouncement of judgment; plaintiffs were granted numerous opportunities but were not diligent; order allowing additional evidence by appellate court was a misapplication of Order XLI Rule 27 (1)(b) and was improper in view of judicial propriety.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of lower appellate court and High Court set aside
  • No order as to costs