TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Second appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence. Review petition denied for not meeting legal requirements.</h1> <h3>Shanmugam Servai Versus P. Periyakaruppan Servai</h3> The Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, citing reasons based on legal principles and lack of sufficient evidence presented by the ... - Issues:Review of judgment under O. 47, R. 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on discovery of new evidence.Analysis:The judgment delivered by Justice N. Arumugam on 4-8-1994 in S.A. 839 of 1994 was reviewed based on O. 47, R. 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving one's case with acceptable evidence to seek remedy before the Court. The plaintiff's title to the suit property was disputed, and the lower appellate Court had reversed the trial Court's judgment. The judgment emphasized the need for cogent evidence to establish one's case and not rely solely on the shortcomings of the defendant. The Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, citing reasons based on legal principles and lack of sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff.The review petition was filed by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sudharsana Natchtappah, who argued for a review under O. 47, R. 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner claimed the discovery of new evidence related to the suit property recorded in revenue documents, which could impact the adjudication of the case. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present this new evidence, invoking the procedural law governing reviews based on new and important matter or evidence not previously known to the party seeking review.To entertain a review under O. 47 of the Code, the Court must identify a mistake or error justifying the review, which could be an error of fact or law. The judgment discussed the legal requirements for a review, emphasizing the need for the new evidence to be relevant and potentially altering the judgment if presented earlier. The Court highlighted the distinction between errors of law and inadvertence, stating that a mere erroneous view on a debatable point of law would not warrant a review.The judgment referred to previous legal discussions on the concept of error apparent and the power of the Court to rectify mistakes or prevent miscarriage of justice. The petitioner's argument for a review based on the discovery of new evidence was scrutinized based on the legal principles governing reviews under O. 47, R. 1. The Court emphasized the necessity for the new evidence to be diligently pursued and nearly conclusive in nature to warrant a review.The Court analyzed the petitioner's claim of a new discovery of evidence related to the suit property and found no grounds to support the petitioner's argument for a review. It was concluded that the petitioner did not meet the requirements under O. 47, R. 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure for a review based on new evidence. The petition for review was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly examined the legal principles governing reviews based on new evidence and emphasized the need for diligence and conclusive new evidence to warrant a review of a previous judgment.
TaxTMI 
