Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/359/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 359 of 2010
=========================================================
ARUNABEN
GHANSHYAMBHAI & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
NILESHKUMAR
SHANTILAL LOTWALA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BA SURTI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR SHITAL R PATEL for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4, 4.2.1,4.2.2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 01/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned counsel Mr. B.A. Surti appearing on behalf of the appellants.
Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. reads as under;
“27.
Production of additional evidence in appellate Court.
(1) The
parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional
evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. But,
if –
(a) The
Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit
evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
[(aa) The
party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not
within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due
diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed
against was passed, or]
(b) The
appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness
to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other
substantial cause,
The
appellate Court may allow such evidence or documents to be produced,
or witness to be examined.
(2) Whether
additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court,
the Court shall refer the reasoning for its admission.”
2. Considering
the facts of the case, learned counsel Mr. Surti requests for time to
comply with the above provision. Hence, S.O to 15.03.2011.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top