Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
RUKAIYABIBI AHMED ALI ISMAIL & OTHERS V/S MUSA ISMAIL MAHMED KHUSAL & OTHERS, decided on Monday, September 20, 2010.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 78 of 2009 in SCA No. 15203 of 2008. ] 20/09/2010
Judge(s) : ALTAMAS KABIR & A.K. PATNAIK
Advocate(s) : Shobha. None.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  K.N. Kaivalyasamy Versus K.T. Shanmugasundaran,   27/01/2017.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2014 (16) SCC 422"  ==   ""  







    Leave granted.2. This Appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 18th December 2008 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 15203 of 2008 for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dated 18.10.2008. It appears that witnesses had been examined in the suit and arguments had already been advanced. While the matter was kept for Judgment an application was filed on behalf of the Appellants herein to bring on record certain documents which have been described at Page 52 of the SLP Paper Book. It has been submitted by Ms. Shobha learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants that these documents were discovered in the circumstances mentioned in the application and that an application had been filed before the trial court to allow the appellant to exhibit the same in the pending Suit No.218 of 1992. Another application was also filed for taking additional evidence on the basis of the said documents. The prayers made on behalf of the appellant in both the petitions were rejected by the learned Trial Court by its impugned Order dated 18.10.2008 on the ground that there were no pleadings in the plaint with regard to the documents nor had the appellants/plaintiffs tried to produce any evidence with regard to the documents now being sought to be introduced. It was also indicated that if the documents were admitted in evidence it would require the proceedings of the suit to be re-opened which would further delay the final disposal thereof.3. The High Court in the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the Appellants/Plaintiffs against the said Order accepted the reasoning of the Trial Court and dismissed the said petition on the ground that no case had been made out for interference.4. Appearing in support of the Appeal Ms. Shobha learned advocate submitted that the facts regarding the documents and the discovery thereof had been mentioned in the applications for permission to adduce additional evidence and to bring on record the documents in question and findings of both the Trial Court and the High Court to the contrary were erroneous on the said count. It has also been submitted that the High Court has incorrectly assessed the relevance of the documents for adjudication of the disputes involved in the Suit.5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellants and the applications filed for bringing on record the documents in question and having examined the same and also having regard to the fact that the authenticity of these documents have not been questioned by the Respondents who have chosen not to appear despite service of notice we are inclined to allow the appeal. The Appeal is accordingly allowed and the applications filed by the Appellants for bringing on record the documents mentioned at Page 52 of the Paper Book and for adducing additional evidence are allowed. The Trial Court shall re-open the evidence and allow the Appellants/Plaintiffs to adduce additional evidence for the purpose of bringing on record the documents in question. 6. The Appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 5 000/- towards costs in respect of the said two Applications filed in the Suit.