Titus Mathew vs Kuttiyamma George Alias Brijith Advocate - BIJU ZACHARIAS KOLADY, Mathew Mathai Muthukadan — 100049/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,O41,R1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 31st March 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLKT100004112023
e-Filing Number
08-08-2023
Filing Number
100426/2023
Filing Date
09-Aug-2023
Registration No
100049/2023
Registration Date
09-Aug-2023
Court
Sub Court, Pala
Judge
1-Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
Decision Date
31-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Titus Mathew
Adv. USHA MENON
Respondent(s)
-
1.Kuttiyamma George Alias Brijith Advocate - BIJU ZACHARIAS KOLADY, Mathew Mathai Muthukadan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
31-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
-
31-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: IA 1/2026 in AS 49/2023 Court Decision: The Sub Judge dismissed the application seeking to admit the original document (Exhibit B2) as additional evidence in the appellate proceedings. The court found that none of the conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for admitting additional evidence were satisfied, particularly because the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence or necessity for producing the original document more than two years after appeal filing. Key Reasoning: The court applied the legal principle that additional evidence at appellate stage is only permissible in limited circumstances—when the trial court refused to admit evidence that should have been admitted, or when evidence could not be produced despite due diligence, or when necessary for proper adjudication. Since the photocopy had already been admitted and considered, and the applicant could not establish sufficient cause for the delayed production of the original, the application lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
31-Mar-2026
Disposed
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
28-Mar-2026
Order/Judgement
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
For Further Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
For Further Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
For Further Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
04-Mar-2026
For Further Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
10-Dec-2025
Prays Time
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
13-Nov-2025
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
19-Aug-2025
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
05-Aug-2025
Call On
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
01-Aug-2025
Prays Time
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
22-Mar-2025
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2025
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
17-Dec-2024
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
05-Nov-2024
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
09-Sep-2024
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
04-Sep-2024
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
17-Jul-2024
Listed to
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
07-Jun-2024
For Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
18-Mar-2024
For Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
17-Feb-2024
For Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
19-Dec-2023
For Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
13-Oct-2023
Adjourned
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
24-Aug-2023
For L C R
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
17-Aug-2023
For Objection and Hearing
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
10-Aug-2023
Issue Notice
Sub Judge/Assistant Sessions Judge
-
09-Aug-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Aug-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 100049/2023
Case Summary: IA 1/2026 in AS 49/2023 Court Decision: The Sub Judge dismissed the application seeking to admit the original document (Exhibit B2) as additional evidence in the appellate proceedings. The court found that none of the conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for admitting additional evidence were satisfied, particularly because the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence or necessity for producing the original document more than two years after appeal filing. Key Reasoning: The court applied the legal principle that additional evidence at appellate stage is only permissible in limited circumstances—when the trial court refused to admit evidence that should have been admitted, or when evidence could not be produced despite due diligence, or when necessary for proper adjudication. Since the photocopy had already been admitted and considered, and the applicant could not establish sufficient cause for the delayed production of the original, the application lacked merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts