Additional Evidence in Appeal: Why the Application Is Decided at Final Hearing?

 Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the application for additional evidence is generally decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal on merits, because the appellate court must first see whether the existing record is sufficient to pronounce judgment. The rule starts with a prohibition: parties have no right to produce fresh evidence in appeal, except in the limited situations mentioned in clauses (a), (aa), and (b).

40-second answer

“Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, an application for additional evidence should ordinarily be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The reason is that the appellate court must first assess the pleadings, issues, and evidence already on record, and then decide whether additional evidence is really necessary. Such evidence can be allowed only in three situations: first, where the trial court wrongly refused evidence; second, where despite due diligence the party could not produce it earlier; and third, where the appellate court itself requires it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The provision is not meant to fill up lacunae or patch up a weak case, and if additional evidence is allowed, reasons must be recorded.”

One-line why

“If the application is decided earlier, the court may admit evidence without knowing whether the existing record is already sufficient; therefore, the real necessity can be judged only at final hearing.”

Short authority line

The Supreme Court has held in the case of IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. Vs ABDUL SHUKOOR  2025 INSC 1027 that the true test is whether the appellate court can pronounce judgment on the material already before it without the additional evidence. It has also said that the power under Order 41 Rule 27 is exceptional and cannot be used to fill omissions or weaknesses in a party’s case.

Print Page