Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLD 917 = 1993 CLC 2357
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1992, decided on 16th May, 1993.
Presented By: Before Abdul Majeed Mallik CJ
M.Y. Arvi for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Siddique for
Respondents.

MANZOOR HUSSAIN and 6 others---Appellants

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD SHAFAIT and another---Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 27 , 1 , 100

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, R.27---Additional evidence, production of---Term "for any other susbtantial cause" as used in O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C. is not to be construed strictly in a narrow sense for Appellate Court was vested with power to allow additional evidence when Court was satisfied that production of such evidence was imperative to meet the ends of justice---Mode of exercise of such discretion---Essential considerations. The term "for any other substantial cause" as used in Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. is not to be construed strictly in a narrow sense as the framer of these provisions, with deliberate objective, conferred power on Appellate Court to allow additional evidence when the Court was satisfied that the production of such evidence was imperative to meet the ends of justice. In order to exercise the discretion in a suitable case, it was enjoined upon the Court to ensure bona fides of the party seeking indulgence of the Court; prima facie genuineness of evidence; the emergence or existence of such evidence at the time of institution of suit or at the time of evidence and its relevancy to the point at issue. When these conditions were well-satisfied, the Court should not hesitate in allowing additional evidence in a suitable case. Conversely when these conditions were not satisfied, the additional evidence should not be allowed in routine, particularly when it was admitted that the evidence was in existence at the time of production of evidence by the parties or before the announcement of the judgment of the trial Court and no step was shown to have been taken earlier for production of such evidence; or it was withheld without sufficient explanation or genuine reasons; or it appeared, prima facie, concocted, fake and fabricated likely to result in miscarriage of justice. A party seeking production of additional evidence should not be allowed to avail the concession, to patch up the weak parts of its case or to fill up lacuna in its evidence.   Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.)--- ----S. 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Second appeal---Findings on merits were…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register