PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED BOMBAY Vs. KABIRUNISSA
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on September 20,1990

PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED,BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
KABIRUNISSA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

THIMMARAJU SATYANARAYANA RAO VS. SECRETERY I L T D CO STAFF CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(APH)-2007-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAM MALLA REDDY VS. BANGI NAGAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2007-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIKANNU CHETTIAR VS. ARMUGHA CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2001-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
O SYED ABBAS VS. SREE SHYAM SAYI CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2001-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
PR CHOCKALINGAM VS. M PICHAI [LAWS(MAD)-2003-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. JAGTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1999-3-60] [REFERRED]
JIBAN SHIL VS. GOURANGA SHIL [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-8-30] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Special leave is granted.
(2.)This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the original plaintiff, who is now dead and has been substituted by his legal representatives, on the allegation that he was occupying a small cutcha building belonging to the appellant Company as a tenant, and that the building was wrongfully demolished, at the instance of the appellant. The appellant denied the claim of tenancy as also the other material averments in the plaint. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the appellant was directed to re-construct the demolished building and put the plaintiff in possession thereof. The decree was affirmed by the appellate Court and a writ application before the High Court was dismissed in limine.
(3.)In view of the order which we are proposing to pass, it is not necessary to give the details of the respective cases of the parties. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate Court, an application for admitting additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants, which remained undisposed of. Even while pronouncing its judgment disposing of the appeal finally, the appellate court did not advert to it. It was only after the case was disposed of that the application for additional evidence was rejected by a short order, observing that the appellants had sufficient opportunity to produce the documents in the trial court, and it had failed to do so.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.