Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for adducing additional evidence in a land acquisition compensation appeal.
Analysis: The only material on record before the courts below was the rejected sale deed, and the documents sought to be produced in appeal were relevant to the determination of fair market value. The governing test under Order 41 Rule 27 is not merely whether the evidence was earlier available, but whether the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or whether its admission is necessary for any other substantial cause. The High Court did not apply that test to the facts of the case. Since the proposed evidence had a direct bearing on the main issue and the land owner was entitled to fair compensation, the application ought to have been allowed. At the same time, the additional documents had first to be proved as to existence, authenticity, genuineness and contents before they could be relied upon.
Conclusion: The rejection of the application for additional evidence was unsustainable, and the application was allowed with a direction that the matter be remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication after proof of the additional documents.