Supreme Court: Appellate Courts Must First Examine Pleadings Before Allowing Additional Evidence Under O 41 Rule 27 of CPC

 In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of

considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional

evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would

be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party

to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as

to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be

brought on record. In absence of necessary pleadings in

that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence

would result in an unnecessary exercise and such

evidence, if led, would be of no consequence as it may not

be permissible to take such evidence into consideration.

Useful reference in this regard can be made to the

decisions in Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Anr.,

AIR 2009 SC 1103 and Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin

and Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148. Thus, besides the

requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the

Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the

Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party

seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only

thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated

by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has

been made out that such permission can be granted. In

absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High

Court in the present case, we are of the view that it

committed an error in allowing the application moved by

the defendant for leading additional evidence. {Para 8}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10458 OF 2010

IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. Vs ABDUL SHUKOOR 

Author: ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1027

Print Page

Supreme Court: Memo of appeal if permitted to be amended would not amount to amendment of original pleading

Mr. Salve submitted that the bar under Section 25 of the Act must be considered having regard to Section 53 thereof which provides for applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel urged that the Respondents had already filed an application for amendment of Memo of Appeal in terms of Order 41, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which having been allowed, would amount to amendment of the claim application in the reference case itself. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Harcharan v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0166/1982 : AIR1983SC43 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and Anr.   MANU/SC/0041/2003 : [2003]1SCR522 . {Para 73}

We do not agree. The pleadings before the Trial Court are the basis for adduction of evidence either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court. By amending the memo of appeal the original pleadings cannot be amended.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 6825-26 and 6827-6832/2003, 

Decided On: 07.09.2005

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhan and S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: 2005 INSC 409,MANU/SC/0549/2005.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are pre-requisites for allowing application for adducing additional evidence in civil appeal as per O 41 R 27 of CPC?

It is true that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence Under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. As observed and held by this Court in the case of A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in   MANU/SC/1400/2015 : (2015) 17 SCC 713, the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.

{Para 4

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1760 of 2022 

Decided On: 10.03.2022

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: M.R. Shah, J.

Citation: Citation: 2022 INSC 293, MANU/SC/0305/2022

Print Page

Whether appellate court can decree suit considering additional evidence without giving opportunity to other side to lead rebuttal evidence?

 First, it took into consideration the additional piece of evidence while deciding the appeals on merits without affording any opportunity to the Appellants herein (who were Respondents in the first appeals) to file any rebuttal evidence to counter the additional evidence adduced by the Respondents (Appellants before the first Appellate Court). This caused prejudice to the Appellants herein because they suffered the adverse order from the Appellate Court on the basis of additional evidence adduced by the Respondents for the first time in appeal against them. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3033 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 8185 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21796 of 2018) and (D. No. 15579/2017)

Decided On: 10.08.2018

 The Corporation of Madras.  Vs. M. Parthasarathy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2018 SC 3777.

Print Page

When appellate court should allow production of additional evidence as per O41 R27 of CPC?

This takes us to the next question in relation to
the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the
Code. In our considered view, the High Court
committed another error when it rejected the
application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule
27 of the Code. This application, in our opinion,
should have been allowed for more than one reason.
34) First, there was no one to oppose the application.
In other words, the respondents were neither served
with the notice of appeal and nor served with the
application and hence they did not oppose the
application. Second, the appellant averred in the
application as to why they could not file the additional
evidence earlier in civil suit and why there was delay
on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate

stage. Third, the averments in the application were
supported with an affidavit, which remained
un-rebutted. Fourth, the application also contained
necessary averment as to why the additional evidence
was necessary to decide the real controversy involved
in appeal. Fifth, the additional evidence being in the
nature of public documents and pertained to suit land,
the same should have been taken on record and lastly,
the appellant being the Union of India was entitled to
legitimately claim more indulgence in such procedural
matters due to their peculiar set up and way of
working.
35) It was for all these reasons, we are of the view
that the application filed by the appellant under Order
41 Rule 27 of the Code deserved to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed by permitting the appellant to file
additional evidence.
36) Learned counsel for the respondents, however,
contended that the additional evidence is not relevant

for deciding the appeal/suit. He also urged that the
appellant has not pleaded any cause as required under
Order 41 Rule 27 to file such evidence at the appellate
stage. We are not impressed by this submission in the
light of the reasons given supra. This submission is
accordingly rejected.
37) Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code is a provision which
enables the party to file additional evidence at the first
and second appellate stage. If the party to appeal is
able to satisfy the appellate Court that there is
justifiable reason for not filing such evidence at the
trial stage and that the additional evidence is relevant
and material for deciding the rights of the parties
which are the subject matter of the lis, the Court
should allow the party to file such additional evidence.
After all, the Court has to do substantial justice to the
parties. Merely because the Court allowed one party to
file additional evidence in appeal would not by itself
mean that the Court has also decided the entire case

in his favour and accepted such evidence. Indeed once
the additional evidence is allowed to be taken on
record, the appellate Court is under obligation to give
opportunity to the other side to file additional evidence
by way of rebuttal.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 920 OF 2008
Union of India
V
K.V. Lakshman & Ors. 

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Dated:June 29, 2016.
Citation:AIR 2016 SC 3139,(2016) 13 SCC124

Print Page