The Secret Files: How a Supreme Court Ruling in the case of P. Ponnusamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu is Changing the "Fair Trial" Game in India?

What if the evidence that could prove your innocence is sitting in a police locker, but the prosecutor isn't required to show it to you? In the high-stakes arena of criminal justice, the "might of the state’s police machinery" often holds a decisive advantage, possessing a mountain of data, witness statements, and physical objects collected during an investigation. Traditionally, the prosecution has been the gatekeeper, sharing only the specific evidence it intends to use to prove guilt. This leaves the accused in a perilous shadow, unaware of materials that might point toward their innocence.

The Supreme Court of India recently confronted this imbalance in P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu. Decided On: 07.11.2022,MANU/SC/1451/2022. This wasn't just a routine appeal; it was a "Death Reference" (RT No. 2/2021) involving several individuals facing the ultimate penalty. The case forced the Court to navigate a treacherous path between the need for efficient, timely trials and the constitutional mandate for a fair defense. This article reveals how the ruling—and its clarification of the "Draft Rules of Criminal Practice"—is fundamentally shifting the landscape of undisclosed materials in Indian courts.

1. The Right to Know What Isn't Being Used

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are limitations on right of accused to seek documents at appellate stage?

As stated earlier, the requirement of disclosure elaborated on in Manoj, not only was premised on the formulation of draft rules, but normatively premised on the ratio of the three-judge bench decision in Manu Sharma (supra). In these circumstances, the proper and suitable interpretation of the disclosure requirement in Manoj (supra) would be that:

(a) It applies at the trial stage, after the charges are framed.

(b) The court is required to give one opportunity of disclosure, and the Accused may choose to avail of the facility at that stage.

(c) In case documents are sought, the trial court should exercise its discretion, having regard to the Rule of relevance in the context of the Accused's right of defence. If the document or material is relevant and does not merely have remote bearing to the defence, its production may be directed. This opportunity cannot be sought repeatedly-the trial court can decline to issue orders, if it feels that the attempt is to delay.

(d) At the appellate stage, the rights of the Accused are to be worked out within the parameters of Section 391 Code of Criminal Procedure. {Para 17}

18. That the Accused, has a right to fair trial, was not in doubt; but what is reiterated is that this right is manifested in the fair disclosure requirement elaborated above. While the concern of delay in conclusion of trial undoubtedly weighs heavily in the mind of the judge, it cannot entail compromise of the right of the Accused to fair investigation and trial.

19. Having regard to the above discussion we are of the opinion that the circumstances in which the request was made-through the letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities, was not justified. The Appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures set out above, well in time. We therefore agree that the appeal made at this late stage, appears to be to prolong the hearing. In these circumstances, the Court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1926 of 2022

Decided On: 07.11.2022

P. Ponnusamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.U. Lalit, C.J.I., S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1451/2022.

Print Page

What is part performance of specific contract as per S 12 of the Specific Relief Act?

 Part performance in the Specific Relief Act means specific performance of only a part of the contract, and the general rule is that the court does not order performance of a part alone. Section 12 is the key provision, and it allows exceptions where the unperformed part is small and compensable, or in some cases where the plaintiff is willing to accept partial performance and relinquish the remaining claim and compensation.

30 second answer

Print Page

Supreme Court: Relinquishment Of Claims Under S.12(3) of Specific Relief Act For Part Performance Can Be Made At Any Stage Of Litigation including at appellate stage

Thus, the position of law is that relinquishment could be made at any stage of the litigation including the appellate stage. The claim of the plaintiff appellant for grant of benefit under

Section 12(3) of the Act was, therefore, rightly not rejected by

the High Court on the simple ground that it was not made at the

trial stage and had been made for the first time at the appellate

stage. In our view the claim can also not be rejected on the short

ground that it was not incorporated in the plaint or was not set

forth in writing before the Trial Court. [See: Ram Niwas v. Smt.

Omkari and another : AIR 1983 All 310] {Para 21}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25246/2023

VIJAY PRABHU Vs S.T. LAJAPATHIE & ORS. 

Citation: 2025 INSC 52.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Adverse Possession Plea Can't Be Raised For First Time At Appellate Stage

The determination of adverse possession depends upon sifting of facts and circumstances, indicative of adverse possession, and then, upon testing of the evidence in the light of the law applicable. The Appellate Court may allow the setting up of the plea of adverse possession for the first time in appeal provided, the facts on the record are sufficient to support it, and the opposite party is not taken by surprise, but otherwise, a declaration of title by adverse possession will not be given where the claim is not set out distinctly in the pleadings or in issues. In Shiro Kumari Debi v. Gobind Shaw Tanti reported in MANU/WB/0029/1877 : I.L.R. 2 Cal. 418, Markby J., observed at page 242, that where the question of 12 years' possession had not been properly raised either in the plaint or in the issues, and the Defendant had no proper notice that such a point was going to be raised, it was not open to the lower appellate Court to declare in Plaintiff's favour on the strength of the title which had not been alleged. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. {Para 28}

29. In the case at hand if plea of adverse possession had been taken in the plaint, and if that plea had been traversed by the Defendants and then proper issues framed, a heavy burden would have laid on the Plaintiffs to lead evidence in support of their hostile claim and a corresponding opportunity of rebuttal would have been given by law to the Defendants. In this case it is inconceivable that the question of adverse possession can become the subject- matter of adjudication on this record in the absence of proper plea, issue or proof.

30. The above discussion leads us to the only conclusion, and that is, that, unless the plea of adverse possession has. been specifically raised in the pleadings, put in issue, and then cogent and convincing evidence led on a multitude of points, and an opportunity to refute the case made out by the Plaintiff, availed of by the Defendant, the plea of adverse possession cannot be allowed to be flung as a surprise, on an unsuspecting Defendant, for the first time in appeal.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22070/2025

Decided On: 08.08.2025

Kishundeo Rout and Ors. Vs. Govind Rao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation: 2025 INSC 956,MANU/SC/1059/2025.

Print Page

Legal Framework for Amendment of plaint at Appellate Stage

 Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amendment to add properties in a plaint can be allowed at the appellate stage, but courts apply strict scrutiny and specific conditions must be met.

Basic Provision: Order VI Rule 17 states that "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just". This provision explicitly allows amendments at any stage, including the appellate stage.

Key Principles for Appellate Stage Amendments

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the court can allow amendment of plaint during execution of decree and at appellate stage?

 Before we proceed to answer the question formulated by us in para 27, we deem it necessary to examine Section 22 of the 1963 Act. It reads thus:

“22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of

earnest money, etc.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the

contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of

1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a

contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an

appropriate case, ask for—

(a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of

the property, in addition to such performance; or

(b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including

the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or [made

by] him, in case his claim for specific performance is

refused.

(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)

shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically

claimed:

Provident that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief.

 (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of subsection (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award

compensation under section 21.” {Para 54}

The term “proceeding” is a very wide and

comprehensive term and it includes execution proceeding

also. The expression “at any stage of the proceeding”

gives widest permission to the Court to allow amendment

at any stage of the proceeding including execution of the

decree. The amendment can be allowed even in an appeal

arising out of the order passed by the executing Court

rejecting the prayer for permission. The proviso

recognises the well settled position that the Court passing

a decree for specific performance retains control over the

subject matter as long as anything remains to be done in

the case.” {Para 9}.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2025

@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5630 OF 2023

K.R. SURESH Vs R. POORNIMA & ORS.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

Citation: 2025 INSC 617.

Dated: May 02, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court : The court should not grant refund of advance amount in suit for specific performance of contract if it is not prayed specifically during the continuance of proceeding

 In our considered opinion, the law contained under Section 22(2) of the 1963 Act is adequately broad and flexible to allow the appellant to seek an amendment of the plaint for the said relief, even at the appellate stage. However, no such application for an amendment of the plaint was moved either before the trial court or during the course of the first appeal before the High Court. That is to say, the appellant never prayed for the refund of the advance money. Here, it would be redundant to state that the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.

{Para 63}

 E. CONCLUSION

64. For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that theforfeiture of advance money by the respondent nos. 1-4 was justified. In  such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the relief of refund of advance money to the appellant.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2025

@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5630 OF 2023

K.R. SURESH Vs R. POORNIMA & ORS.

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

Citation: 2025 INSC 617.

Dated: May 02, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the court can permit parties to amend their pleadings at the stage of first and second appeal?

 One cannot dispute that in appropriate cases, the parties are permitted to amend their pleadings at any stage not only during the pendency of the trial but also at the first and second appellate stage with the leave of the Court provided the amendment proposed is bona fide, relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in the lis.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2343-2344 of 2017

Decided On: 10.02.2017

Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Manohar Lal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jasti Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: 2017(5) MHLJ 195,(2017) 5 SCC 212.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Supreme Court: Important factors which the court should consider while deciding application for amendment of pleading

 On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;

(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and

(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. {Para 63}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2343-2344 of 2017

Decided On: 10.02.2017

Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd.Vs. Manohar Lal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jasti Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: 2017(5) MHLJ 195,(2017) 5 SCC 212

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether court can release convict on bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal as per S 436-A of CRPC?

In my view, Section 436-A, Cr.P.C. is restricted in

its operation to grant of bail to an under-trial prisoner

‘during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial’ and does

not, ex proprio vigore, apply at the appellate stage. I, thus,

concur with the prima facie view of Their Lordships of the

Hon’ble Division Bench expressed in the order dated

August 14, 2020 as well as the opinion of learned brothers

Deshpande and Shukre, JJ. I also agree with Their Lordships

that the reference ought to be disposed of by answering

the question referred in the negative.

7. Having so answered, I hasten to observe that in a

given situation the spirit of Section 436-A, Cr.P.C. could be

considered by an appellate court while it is seized of an

application under Section 389, Cr.P.C. and, drawing

inspiration from the principle ingrained in the former, to

suspend execution of the sentence bearing in mind all

relevant factors including the time likely to be taken for

disposal of the appeal. The judicial mind in the wise

exercise of discretion and by suitable moderation may

suspend execution of the sentence and grant bail under

Section 389, Cr.P.C., the absence of a provision like Section

436-A, Cr.P.C. in the chapter on appeals notwithstanding. If

any authority is required, one may usefully refer to the

decisions in Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab,

reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291, Babu Singh vs. State of

U.P., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579, Bhagwan Rama

Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4

SCC 421, Akhtari Bi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,

reported in (2001) 4 SCC 355, and Suresh Kumar vs.

State [NCT, Delhi], reported in (2001) 10 SCC 338, which

are all decisions prior to the birth of Section 436-A in the

Cr.P.C. delineating factors that a Court ought to take into

account while considering a prayer for bail at the appellate

stage.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATIONN (APPA) NO. 270/2020

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 336/2016

Maksud Sheikh Gaffur Sheikh  Vs  State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J.

R. K. DESHPANDE &

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, JJ.

DATED : 28.08.2020

JUDGMENT (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J)

Print Page

Whether court can permit production of certificate U/S 65B of Evidence Act at subsequent stage?

Anwar P.V. (supra) partly overruled the earlier decision of the Supreme Court on the procedure to prove electronic record(s) in Navjot Sandhu (supra), holding that Section 65B is a specific provision relating to the admissibility of electronic record(s) and, therefore, production of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory. Anwar P.V. (supra) does not state or hold that the said certificate cannot be produced in exercise of powers of the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. or, at the appellate stage under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Evidence Act is a procedural law and in view of the pronouncement in Anwar P.V. (supra) partly overruling Navjot Sandhu (supra), the prosecution may be entitled to invoke the aforementioned provisions, when justified and required. Of course, it is open to the court/presiding officer at that time to ascertain and verify whether the responsible officer could issue the said certificate and meet the requirements of Section 65B.

Emails are downloaded and computer output, in the form of paper prints, are taken every day. These emails may become relevant and important electronic evidence, subsequently. It is difficult to conceive and accept that the emails would be inadmissible, if the official i.e. the person who downloaded them and had taken printouts had failed to, on that occasion or simultaneously record a certificate under Section 65B.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. A. 711/2014

Decided On: 24.11.2015

 Kundan Singh  Vs. The State

Print Page

Whether tenant can be permitted to produce documents at appellate stage if document is between landlord and third party?

 It cannot be denied that the documents sought to be produced by the tenants are material and if substantiated, would have a material effect on the case of the landlords of their bona fide need of the suit premises. If, in fact, the landlord has entered into negotiations with M/s. Godrej Boyce Co. Ltd. for selling or use by them of the property, the need cannot be said to be genuine. Similarly, a change in the construction plan may show that the alleged need of the landlord for the construction may not be genuine. The third document proposes to demolish the case of availability of the funds for construction with the landlord. Two of the documents came into existence after the passing of the decree by the trial court. Similarly, the correspondence entered into by the landlord with a third party could not have been within the knowledge of the tenant and therefore, the tenants' statement that the documents could not have been produced before the trial court, in spite of the exercise of due diligence, was highly probable. In such circumstances, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the first appellate court permitting additional evidence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1210 of 2005 

Decided On: 14.02.2005

ADIL Jamshed Frenchman Vs  Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Lahoti, C.J., G.P. Mathur and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.

Print Page

Whether plaintiff can file application seeking permission to sue as indigent person in appeal if his application was rejected by trial court?

 In our view, the dismissal of application made Under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code by the Trial Court in the earlier round of litigation is not a bar against the Plaintiff to file an application/appeal Under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code before the Appellate Court. The grant and rejection of such prayer by the Trial Court is confined only up to the disposal of the suit. This is clear from the reading of Rule 3(1) and 3(2) of Order 44, which contemplate holding of inquiry again into the question at the appellate stage as to whether the applicant is an indigent person or not since the date from the decree appealed from.

31. Once the Plaintiff files an appeal Under Order 44 of the Code, his case is governed by the provisions of Order 44. The applicant to whom the permission was granted or declined by the trial court is entitled to apply before the appellate court to allow him to continue with the status or grant the status so as to enable him to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person.

32. This is subject to applicant filing an affidavit as required Under Order 44 Rule 3(1) where the status is granted to him by the trial court. If the averments in his affidavit are controverted by the State, an inquiry into the status of the applicant as to whether he is an indigent person since the date of decree appealed from is mandatory at the appellate stage as contemplated Under Order 44 Rule 3(1).

33. So far as Clause (2) of Order 44 Rule 3 of the Code is concerned, it deals with the cases where the applicant was declined the status of an indigent person by the trial court in the suit. In such case, the applicant is entitled to say that he is or has become an indigent person since the date of decree appealed from and, therefore, entitled to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person. In such case also, an inquiry is required to be held to decide his status.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2019 

Decided On: 07.01.2019

 Sushil Thomas Abraham  Vs.   Skyline Build. and Ors.

Print Page

Whether objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction of court can be taken at appellate stage?

 In the light of the above, it is clear
that no objection to the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the court which tried OS No.
61 of 1971 could be raised successfully even
in an appeal against that very decree unless
it had been raised at the earliest
opportunity and a failure of justice or
prejudice was shown. Obviously therefore, it
could not be collaterally challenged. That
too not by the plaintiffs therein, but by a
defendant whose alienation was unsuccessfully
challenged by the plaintiffs in that suit.”
56. Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is
apparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 of
Additional District Judge, that no objection to the
competence of Additional District Judge to decide the
case was taken by any of the parties. No objection
having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code comes into play. Subsection
(2) of
Section 21 provides that no objection as to the
competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary

limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions
mentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection having
been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of
the Court. Subsection
(2) precludes the revisionist to
raise any objection regarding competence of the court
and further revisional court ought not to have allowed
such objection regarding competence of Court of
Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The
respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding
competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain
judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed
to turnround
and contend that the court of Additional
District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small
Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and
nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such
objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any
objection regarding competence of court and allowed the
matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the
small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the

tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
57. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not
adverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In judgment of Shobhit Nigam(Supra) also, affect of
Section 21 was neither considered nor raised. Section 21
contains a legislative policy which policy has an object
and purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of
cases on merit on basis of technical objections.

62. We thus hold that even when the court of Additional
District Judge was not competent to decide the Small
Causes Suit in question on the ground that the pecuniary
jurisdiction is vested in Court of Small Causes i.e.
Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015, no
interference was called in the judgment of Additional
District Judge in the exercise of Revisional
Jurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions of
Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.90519052
OF 2018

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED
THR. LRS.  Vs  VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. 

Print Page

Whether party can challenge jurisdiction of court at appellate stage or revisional stage?

 Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is
apparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 of
Additional District Judge, that no objection to the
competence of Additional District Judge to decide the
case was taken by any of the parties. No objection
having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code comes into play. Subsection
(2) of
Section 21 provides that no objection as to the
competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary

limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions
mentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection having
been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of
the Court. Subsection
(2) precludes the revisionist to
raise any objection regarding competence of the court
and further revisional court ought not to have allowed
such objection regarding competence of Court of
Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The
respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding
competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain
judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed
to turnround
and contend that the court of Additional
District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small
Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and
nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such
objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any
objection regarding competence of court and allowed the
matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the
small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the

tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.90519052
OF 2018
(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 42754276
of 2017)

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs  VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR

Dated:October 12,2018.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Print Page

Whether application for taking additional evidence on record filed at appellate stage should be decided during pendency of appeal?

 Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/in executable and is liable to be ignored.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008

Decided On: 17.07.2012

 Union of India (UOI) Vs.  Ibrahim Uddin and Ors.

Print Page

When court should not permit calling of municipal record at appellate stage?

The plaint makes a positive averment of a negative fact, that is, the absence of consent in writing of the landlord to raising of the permanent structure by the tenant over the tenancy premises. In the wake of such averment in the plaint, it was necessary for the tenant to have raised specific pleading in the written statement setting out the particulars of the consent in writing. Not only the particulars are not pleaded but event he factum of the landlord having given a consent in writing to the permanent construction is not stated. There is not even a whisper in the written statement of such consent, on which the tenant relies, having been ever given by the landlord and forming part of the record of the Municipal Corporation. If the Municipal Corporation had expressed its inability to make available certified copies of relevant records to the appellants, the appellants should have taken steps before the trial court for summoning the original record from the custody of the Municipal Authorities, which could have shown the bona fides of the plea raised by the tenant-appellant. Nothing such was gone. Similarly, no effort for production of the alleged consent on writing of the landlord appears to have been made during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellant court. In this background, the High Court rightly declined to show its indulgence to a belated prayer for summoning the record from the custody of the Municipal Corporation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 2500-2502 of 1998

Decided On: 20.11.2002

Vithal N. Shetti Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar and Arun Kumar, JJ.

Citation: 2003 Bom RC 168

Print Page

When court should allow production of additional evidence at appellate stage?

We find that the courts below have dismissed the application of the Appellant Under Order XLI, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure and refused to take the aforesaid document on record on the ground that the same is irrelevant for fixation of the quantum of standard rent. That may not be correct. In any case it can be examined at the stage of trial. At this stage some document is produced and we find that this document may have a bearing relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties and all the requisites of Order XLI, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure stand satisfied inasmuch as this document was not in the possession of the Appellant at the time of trial of the petition and came to the notice of the Appellant at the stage of the pendency of the revision petition.

7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the authenticity of this document is not established. Again that would be a matter which will have to be examined during the trial.

8. We, thus, allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the Courts below as well application filed by the Appellant Under Order XLI, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure stands allowed. Needless to mention that the Respondent shall also be given an opportunity to lead the evidence in rebuttal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5609 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12336 of 2017

Decided On: 26.04.2017

Satyavati Ramprasad Ruia Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Citation: 2017(2) RCR(Rent)498

Print Page

Whether grounds for eviction can be added by amendment at appellate stage

Undisputedly, the application for amendment was made during the pendency of the proceedings. Appeal is a continuation of the suit. Merely because the application has been filed during the pendency of the Appeal, it cannot be said that no amendment to the plaint can be allowed. The decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Mudra Salt and Chemical Industries v. Collector, Thane and others reported in MANU/MH/0378/2001 : (2001)4BOMLR534 is to the effect that the only point which is to be considered is, whether the proposed amendment is necessary for an apt decision in the matter in the dispute between the parties. Merely addition of one or more ground for eviction cannot amount to change in the nature of the proceedings for eviction of a tenant and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained as apparently it has been passed in the improper exercise of its jurisdiction by the Court below.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Appln. No. 639 of 2002

Decided On: 04.06.2002

 Chanchalben wd/o Dharshi Shah and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation:2002(4) MHLJ382,2002 BOM RC 510

Print Page