Court dismisses appeal for further evidence as it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed the respondents' application to adduce further evidence regarding land ownership and channel disputes. The appellants argued for supplementary testimony and Land Registry records, but the court found these materials could have been obtained with reasonable diligence during the original trial. Consequently, the application failed because the evidence was not genuinely new or unobtainable at the time of the trial.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAs. 24 of the Civil Procedure Law; Evidence must not have been obtainable with reasonable diligence at trial to be admitted on appeal.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*1166] 1966 November 18
(VASSILIADES, AG. P., JOSEPHIDES, J., LOIZOU, AG.J. )
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Yiannis Ashiotis and 13 Others,
Appellants-Defendants,
v.
Michael Weiner personally and as agent
of Samuel Aranovitch and 4 Others,
Respondents-Plaintiffs,
(Civil Appeal No.4538).
Appeal - Further Evidence - Application for leave to produce further evidence - Evidence proposed to be adduced could he made available at the trial Court with reasonable diligence - Principles enunciated in Pourikos v. Fevzi (No.2) 1962 C.L.R. p.283, applicable.
Practice - Appeal - Further Evidence - Application for leave to produce further evidence.
St. Pavlides, for the Appellants.
Chr. Mitsides with G. Constantinides, for the Respondents.
RULING
The following Ruling of the Court was delivered by:-
VASSILIADES, AG.P. : At this stage we have to deal with the application of the respondents, for leave to produce further evidence; the evidence described in the application. Part of such evidence consists of Land Registry records; another part is the testimony of the Chairman of the Village Authority of Pyroi village, and of records in his possession; and further evidence from one of the parties who has already given evidence before the trial Court, and now wishes to give supplementary [*1167] evidence and produce documents relating to the ownership of the disputed channels.
We have heard extensive argument in support of the application, at the end of which we found it unnecessary to call on the other side. It is clear at this stage that the matter is fully covered by the Judgment in Pourikos v. Fevzi (No.2) 1962, C.L.R. p.283.
We can dispose of the application before us by referring to the part of the Judgment of the President, Mr. Justice Wilson, at page 286, where he was quoting from the Judgment of Tucker L.J., in Braddock v. Tillotsen's Newspapers Ltd., (1950) 1 K.B. 47. It is sufficient, for the purposes of the application now before us, to repeat that:-
"In the present case the plaintiff has failed to meet the first test, namely that it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial and for that reason alone this application must fail" (p.288).
It is obvious that the evidence which the respondent now proposes to adduce, is evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could have been obtained and put before the trial Court. In fact, at the end of his argument, Mr. Constantinides agreed that the evidence regarding the title of his clients is already before the Court in the form of the Land Registry exhibits, and the evidence of the Land Registry witnesses. [*1168]
Adopting the same test in the present case, and for the same reasons, we are clearly of opinion that the application for leave to adduce further evidence must fail.
Application dismissed.