CASE 10: GILL & CO. VS. BIMLA KUMARI, 1986 RLR 370

Facts: Eviction notice sent to M/S Gill & company on grounds of non-payment of rent, misuse, bonafide requirement as the residence for herself and members of her family, subletting.

Issue: Whether the decision of tribunal of rejecting the application of production of additional evidence in court.

The court observed that:

  • The rule is that an appellate court shall decide an appeal on the evidence led by the parties before the lower court and shall not admit additional evidence for the purpose of disposal of an appeal.
  • Evidently it is not a case where lower court had improperly refused to admit evidence. It was never tendered.
  • Likewise, it is not the case of the appellant that the additional evidence sought to be produced by them at the appellate stage was not within their knowledge or after exercising due diligence same could not be produced.
  • The only question which falls for consideration is whether the additional evidence was required by the appellate court for enabling it to pronounce judgments or was there any other substantial cause for allowing the same.

Decision:

Jurisdiction of high court second appeal is confined to the determination of question of law and not to reserve the finding of fact. Hence high court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with finding of fact reached by the lower court unless of course, it can be shown that error of law in arriving or that it was based on no evidence at all or was arbitrary unreasonable. The high court was incompetent to reassess the evidence afresh and it was bound by the decision of the tribunal on question of fact.

Leave a Comment

google.com, pub-6941146626770215, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0