Skip to content


Bussa Chinna Reddy and ors. Vs. Gangavaram Govinda Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1099
AppellantBussa Chinna Reddy and ors.
RespondentGangavaram Govinda Reddi and ors.
Cases ReferredVaithinatha Pillai v. Kuppa Thevar
Excerpt:
.....post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. therefore, as an employer, the government is entitled to prescribe, especially in a disciplined force like the police force, such a restriction at the entry level. there cannot be a dispute about the proposition that an employer has the right to prescribe any qualifications for appointment to a post. if that be so, an employer has a concomitant right even to prescribe disqualifications when it comes appointment to a post. persons who were never involved in criminal cases, need not be treated as equals to or on par with persons who were involved in criminal..........43 mad. 737:that where a lower appellate court refuses to admit a certain material document as additional evidence in the appeal under order 41, rule 27, civil p. c. the high court cannot interfere in second appeal and hold that such additional evidence ought to have been admitted by the lower appellate court.2. mr. narasimhachari for the appellant contends that the authority of this decision is considerably shaken by the recent decision of the privy council in indrajit protap bahadur sahi v. amar singh a. i. r. [1923] p. c. 128 in that case this point was not specifically decided. the point there was whether the appellate court was entitled to admit additional evidence and their lordships of the privy council held that it was open to the appellate court for sufficient reasons to admit.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. The only ground of appeal in this case is that the lower appellate Court improperly refused to admit fresh evidence in appeal. This is not a ground upon which a second appeal is sustainable. It was decided in Vaithinatha Pillai v. Kuppa Thevar [1919] 43 Mad. 737:

that where a lower appellate Court refuses to admit a certain material document as additional evidence in the appeal under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C. the High Court cannot interfere in second appeal and hold that such additional evidence ought to have been admitted by the lower appellate Court.

2. Mr. Narasimhachari for the appellant contends that the authority of this decision is considerably shaken by the recent decision of the Privy Council in Indrajit Protap Bahadur Sahi v. Amar Singh A. I. R. [1923] P. C. 128 In that case this point was not specifically decided. The point there was whether the appellate Court was entitled to admit additional evidence and their Lordships of the Privy Council held that it was open to the appellate Court for sufficient reasons to admit additional evidence, and fresh evidence was admitted before the Privy Council. That decision does not in any way conflict with the decision in Vaithinatha Pillai v. Kuppa Thevar [1919] 43 Mad. 737.

3. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //