CPC Case Brief – K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc

Spread the love

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

Facts

  • The parties entered into a partnership which was reconstituted at a later date.
  • A (plaintiff-respondent) Firm
  • B (defendant-appellant)Partner
  • B handed over certain work to A for execution.
  • Though B retired, he still requested A to continue work in his name.
  • According to A, B owed some amount to A.
  • B issued a cheque in this regard but was dishonoured.
  • A filed a suit for recovery.
  • B denied the fact contending that the cheque was obtained by fraud.
  • Trial judge dismissed the case.

Issue

  • Whether respondent can produce additional evidence in the Court under Order 41 rule 27?
  • Interpretation of O41 R27 is important.
  • Condition precedent for application of (aa) is different from (b). If the former one is to be applied, it is for the applicant to show that the conditions precedent to that clause was met. If b is to apply, the court is to consider the entire evidence on record and come on independent findings.
  • In State of Gujrat v. Mahendra Kumar, it was held that the appellate court must admit fresh evidence only when it is required to pronounce judgment. The particular order does not allow the court to let in evidence just to pronounce judgment in a particular way.

Holding

  • The respondent may file an additional affidavit in support of its application under O 41 R27.

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

 


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *