Sunday, February 25, 2018

Additional evidence

#Additional_evidence #cpc_order41_rule27

Conditions which must be complied with by the party producing the additional evidence:-

Jaipur Development Authority vs Smt. Kailashwati Devi 
(1997 Supp(3) SCR 664) the Supreme Court held that --

"Order 41, Rule 27(1)(aa) mentions the conditions which must be complied with by the party producing the additional evidence, namely, 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" in the Trial Court.

It is not one of the conditions that the party seeking to introduce "additional" evidence must have also been one who has led some evidence in the Trial Court.

Such a view amounts to introducing an additional condition not contemplated by the sub-rule. No distinction was intended by the sub-rule between a party who has produced some evidence in the Trial Court and one who has adduced no evidence in the Trial Court.

All that is required is that the conditions mentioned in the body of the sub-rule must be proved to exist.

It is not, therefore, permissible to restrict the sub-clause (aa) for the benefit of only those who have adduced some evidence in the Trial Court.