Supreme Court: Additional evidence in appeal can be admitted at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC,

27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.--(a) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court.

But if--

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause,the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.

10. In view of the above provision, in our opinion, when an application for reception of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was filed by the parties, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. The above principle has been reiterated by this Court in Jatinder Singh and Anr. v. Mehar Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/8065/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 354 and Shyam Gopal Bindal and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.   MANU/SC/0025/2010 : (2010) 2 SCC 316.

11. If any petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 in an appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to consider at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing in the issues involved. It is trite to observe that under Order 41, Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial Court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature. It is equally well-settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae or to patch up the weak points in the case.

12. Adducing additional evidence is in the interest of justice. Evidence relating to subsequent happening or events which are relevant for disposal of the appeal, however, it is not open to any party, at the stage of appeal, to make fresh allegations and call upon the other side to admit or deny the same. Any such attempt is contrary to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Additional evidence cannot be permitted at the Appellate stage in order to enable other party to remove certain lacunae present in that case.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 309 and 310 of 2003

Decided On: 09.11.2010

Malayalam Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: P. Sathasivam, J.

 Citation: 2010 INSC 761, MANU/SC/0935/2010

Print Page

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).

Print Page

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

Silent Defendants, Noisy Records: How District Judges Should Handle Undefended Partition Appeals and Additional Evidence

 When a defendant appears but never files a written statement, and yet the trial court dismisses a partition suit with minimal reasoning, the real work shifts to the first appellate court. For District Judges, such appeals are a common—and delicate—test of how far one can go on the existing record, how to treat additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and how strictly to enforce the “no new case in appeal” rule.

This article distils core principles from the CPC, the Evidence Act and leading Supreme Court decisions, using the typical pattern of a partition suit based on revenue records, an absent written statement, unrebutted plaintiff’s evidence, and an Order XLI Rule 27 application for certified 7/12 extracts or similar public documents.

“First appeals are not a mere formality; the District Court is the final court on facts.”

Print Page

Pleadings-First Doctrine: Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Scrutiny of Pleadings before Allowing Additional Evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

In the application preferred Under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, the Defendant stated that he got the information that there was no such sale by the Plaintiffs in the last week of June, 2000. After making inquiries in the office of the Sub-Registrar, he got such information and obtained certified copies of extracts of said documents. It can be seen that the High Court has proceeded to consider the application under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code without examining as to whether the additional evidence sought to be led was supported by the pleadings of the Defendant in the written statement. {Para 7}

8. 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 v. Nilima Mandal and Anr.   MANU/SC/8199/2008 : 2008:INSC:1072 : AIR 2009 SC 1103 and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr.,   MANU/SC/0561/2012 : 2012:INSC:288 : (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.

9. As we have found that the application for leading additional evidence has been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led was in consonance with the pleadings of the Defendant and whether such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the additional evidence taken on record has weighed with it while reversing the decree, the matter requires re-consideration by the High Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10458 of 2010 

Decided On: 22.08.2025

Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Abdul Shukoor.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1027, MANU/SC/1139/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Appellants can not rely upon the additional evidence at the appellate stage in the absence of foundational pleadings in plaint

 11.11. Further, even at the stage of the earlier suit instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of the Appellant-Plaintiffs, their consistent case was one of lawful title to the suit property. No plea of adverse possession was ever raised against the Respondent-Defendants. The Appellants wish to rely upon the additional evidence, namely, the entries in the General Land Register maintained by the Respondent-Defendants to show that the suit property is recorded as private land. Such an endeavour, at the appellate stage and in the absence of foundational pleadings, is wholly impermissible in law. Mere recording of the land in suit as private land in the GLR does not in any manner benefit the Appellants claim of ownership.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 of 2011

Decided On: 09.03.2026

Gobind Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 211,MANU/SC/0205/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

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

Ex Parte at Trial, Active in Appeal: Can the Defendant File Fresh Documents in First Appeal?

Q :- Suit is proceeded exparte against defendant before trial court. trial court has dismissed the suit of plaintiff. plaintiff has filed appeal against dismissal of his suit. in that appeal, notice is issued to defendant. he appears before appellate court and produce copies of documents in support of his case. whether appellate court can consider those documents while deciding that appeal. what role defendant can play in the appeal?

Ans:-A defendant who was proceeded ex parte before the trial court does not get an unrestricted right to introduce fresh documents when he appears as respondent in the plaintiff’s first appeal. The appellate court normally decides the appeal on the trial court record, and any fresh documents can be considered only if they are admitted as additional evidence under Section 107 CPC read with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused Cannot Invoke S.91 CrPC To Compel Prosecution To Produce Things At The Stage Of Framing Of Charge

 The learned counsel for the appellant- State has rightly

drawn the attention of this Court to the legal position

settled by this Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs.

Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which a Three

Judge Bench of this Court has held as under: -

“25. Any document or other thing envisaged

under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to

be produced on finding that the same is

“necessary or desirable for the purpose of

investigation, inquiry, trial or other

proceedings under the Code”. The first and

foremost requirement of the section is about

the document being necessary or desirable. The

necessity or desirability would have to be seen

with reference to the stage when a prayer is

made for the production. If any document is

necessary or desirable for the defence of the

accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at

the initial stage of framing of a charge would

not arise since defence of the accused is not

relevant at that stage. When the section refers

to investigation, inquiry, trial or other

proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that

under the section a police officer may move the

court for summoning and production of a

document as may be necessary at any of the

stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the

accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek

order under Section 91 would ordinarily not

come till the stage of defence. When the

section talks of the document being necessary

and desirable, it is implicit that necessity

and desirability is to be examined considering

the stage when such a prayer for summoning and

production is made and the party who makes it,

whether police or accused. If under Section

227, what is necessary and relevant is only the

record produced in terms of Section 173 of the

Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke

Section 91 to seek production of any document

to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons

for production of document can be issued by

court and under a written order an officer in

charge of a police station can also direct

production thereof. Section 91 does not confer

any right on the accused to produce document in

his possession to prove his defence. Section 91

presupposes that when the document is not

produced process may be initiated to compel

production thereof.” {Para 6}

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon

the decision in the case of Nitya Dharmananda Vs. Gopal

Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93, to submit that the court

being under the obligation to impart justice, is not

debarred from exercising its power under Section 91

Cr.P.C., if the interest of justice in a given case so

requires. However the said decision is not helpful to the

respondent. In the said decision also, it has been

observed that the accused cannot invoke and would not

have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of

framing of charge. In view of the law laid down by the

Three Judge Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath

Padh i, (supra), we are inclined to accept the present

appeal.

8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set

aside. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed accordingly.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.856 OF 2024

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs SWARN SINGH @ BABA.

Dated: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused in cheque bounce case can disprove his signature on cheque by producing its certified copy

 Certified copy of a document issued by a Bank is itself

admissible under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 without

any formal proof thereof. Hence, in an appropriate case, the

certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the Bank

can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the same

with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers

under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. {Para 15}

16. Thus, we are of the view that if at all, the appellant was

desirous of proving that the signatures as appearing on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, then he could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and a request could have been made to summon the concerned Bank official in defence for giving evidence regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque.

17. However, despite having opportunity, the accused appellant

did not put any question to the bank official examined in defence

for establishing his plea of purported mismatch of signature on the cheque in question and hence, we are of the firm opinion that the appellate Court was not required to come to the aid and assistance of the appellant for collecting defence evidence at his behest. The presumptions under the NI Act albeit rebuttable operate in favour of the complainant. Hence, it is for the accused to rebut such presumptions by leading appropriate defence evidence and the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused to collect evidence on his behalf.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal@SLP(Crl.) No(s). 16641 of 2023

AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Author: Mehta, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 63.

Dated: January 29, 2024.

Print Page

Can the appellate court permit the production of additional evidence at a belated stage that would result in a retrial of the accused or a change in the nature of the case against the accused?

4(i) Section 391 Cr.P.C gives out power to the Appellate Court to take further evidence in following manner:-

“391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken-(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the

Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary,

shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself,

or direct it to be taken a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

4(ii) In (2019) 16 SCC 712 [Brigadier Sukhjeet Singh

(Retired) MVC Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors], the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that the key words in Section 391(1) are “if it thinks

additional evidence to be necessary”. The word “necessary” used in

Section 391(1) is to mean necessary for deciding the appeal. Power

to take additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is with the

object of appropriate decision of the appeal by the appellate Court to

secure ends of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court noted the decision

rendered in (2001) 4 SCC 759 (Rambhau Vs. State of

Maharashtra), wherein a word of caution was introduced for

guidance “that additional evidence cannot and ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the accused. It is not a disguise for a re-trial or to change the nature of the caseagainst the accused. The order for adducing additional evidence must not ordinarily be made, if the prosecution has had a fair opportunity and has not availed of it. It was further held that there is no fetter on the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C of the Appellate Court. All powers are conferred on the Court to secure the ends of justice. While allowing the application moved under Section 391 Cr.P.C. by the accused in that case, Hon’ble Apex Court further held that it depends on facts of each and every case to come to a conclusion as to whether it is necessary to take additional evidence or not. It would also be apt to refer 2019(3) SLC 1354 (Jagdeep Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative BankLimited), wherein observations were made that Section 391 Cr.P.C. is not intended to remedy the negligence or laches of the party.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. 73/2023

Decided on: 11.04.2023

Kewal Krishan  Vs   State of H.P. & Ors.

Coram

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Citation: 2023 Lawweb (HP ) 2.

Print Page

What are necessary conditions for deciding amendment of pleading application?

 Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors.MANU/SC/0002/1957 : [1957]1SCR595 which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. (Also see: Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal KalwarMANU/SC/0188/1989 : (1990)1SCC166. {Para 15}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2785 of 2008 

Decided On: 11.04.2008

North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Devinder Kumar Jain, JJ.

Author: Devinder Kumar Jain, J.

Citation: AIR 2008 SC 2139,(2008) 8 SCC 511.

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

Under which circumstances Appellate court can call upon Municipal Corporation to produce additional evidence at appellate stage?

 It is no doubt true that the Municipal authorities, due to negligence or otherwise, did not place these orders of delegation on the record of the Small Cause Court. Our attention has, however, been drawn to the Rules, known as "Municipal Appeal Rules, 1976" made by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution. Rule 10 of, the said Rules, inter alia, states that the written reply shall be set out in paragraphs numbered consecutively stating whether the facts are disputed by the respondent or not. In the instant case, there has been a general denial in the written statement, with regard to the validity of the orders passed, but that is not material because Rule 11 gives the Magistrate or the Judge power to suo motu call for additional evidence if he considers it necessary in the interest of justice. In our opinion, the Small Cause Court ought to have suo motu called for additional evidence. As has been stated in the said Civil Application, powers have been delegated by the Municipal Commissioners right since 1961. The Small Cause Courts ought to have enquired and required orders of delegation being placed on record. Section 49 and Section 69 both envisage delegation of powers and it would have been proper exercise of jurisdiction if the Small Cause Courts had demanded leading of such evidence. In any case, this Court has powers under Order 41 Rule 27 to entertain the application. Merely because there has been possible negligence on the part of the Corporation in not producing the orders of delegation before the Small Cause Court should not result in an undue or unjust benefit being given to a tenant and the Corporation being deprived of the tax legitimately due under the Act. This is a case where due to the fault in producing evidence in order to meet a technical objection on the part of the tenants, payment of legitimate tax dues are sought to be avoided. For the negligence of the Corporation's lawyer or its employees, public revenue should not be allowed to suffer and just dues must be paid. To our opinion, the power of the appellate court to allow fresh evidence even at the appellate stage under Order 41, Rule 27 cannot be disputed. The circumstances contained in the said provision are clearly satisfied. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy, (1994) 4 SCC 659 where it has been observed that :--

"....It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof...."

In the present case, the interest of justice does require the acceptance of the documents, which clearly show that the Officers under whose signature the notices were issued and who passed the orders of assessment and sent the bills were duly empowered to do so. Accordingly, Civil Application No. 2232 of 1994 is allowed.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Whether court can permit the production of additional evidence in Miscellaneous appeal?

  In the case of Rajesh Jaiswal and another Y.S. Anuj Shah and another reported in 2013 (3) ALJ 67, which was also a case arising out of the matter of grant of temporary injunction and an application for additional evidence filed in the Misc. Appeal was rejected, this Court held that Order 43 Rule 2 C.P.C. provides that Order 41 C.P.C. shall apply to appeals from orders also which means appeals preferred against orders as specified under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1. It means that Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. can be applied to Misc. Appeals as well and there is no bar in taking new material on record at the appellate stage in the appeal arising out of orders. The appellate court has full authority to accept affidavits/documents in addition to those filed in the court below if necessary for the purposes of deciding the injunction matter subject to certain limitations. Paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of Rajesh Jaiswal case (supra) are being reproduced hereunder:-

"5. Order XLIII. Rule 2. C.P.C. provides that rules of Order XLI, C.P.C. shall apply to appeals from orders also which means appeals preferred against orders as specified under Section 104 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1 including one arising from grant or refusal of interim injunction. It means Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. can be applied to miscellaneous appeals as well and there is no bar in taking new material on record at the appellate stage in appeals arising out of orders. Therefore, also the appellate Court has full authority to accept affidavits/documents in addition to those filed in the Court below, if necessary for the purposes of deciding the injunction matter subject to certain limitations."

"6. In the above legal scenario the appellate Court below is not right in refusing to accept the documents in appeal and erred in refusing them on the ground that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. are not applicable. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.9.2012 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed and the Court below is directed to consider the application 15C afresh and to decide the appeal itself in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." {Para 46}

47. In the case of Bal Krishna versus Virendra Kumar Misc. Single No. 15947 of 2017, decided on 5/7/2019 this Court considered the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Zila Parishad (supra) and in the case of Rajesh Jaiswal (supra) and held that the additional evidence is permissible to be filed in Misc. Appeal.

Allahabad High Court

Dr. Chandra Deo Tyagi vs Additional District Judge Court ... on 10 July, 2020

Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether revisional court can take additional evidence in suitable cases?

  Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri H.S. Nigam argued with vehemence that the view of the lower revisional court that in law no additional evidence could be admitted in a revision filed under Section 18 of the Act. is patently erroneous and in support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon a number of decisions of this Court. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in (1) Lallu Lal Gupta v. IVth Additional District Judge and others, 1979 (UP) RCC 372 ; (2) Bihari Lal v. IInd Additional District Judge, Mathura and others, 1983 (2) ARC 146 ; (3) Smt. Shanti Devi v. District Judge, Farrukhabad and others, 1982 ARC 92 and (4) Radhey Shyam and another v. Additional District Judge, Unnao and others, 1984 (2) ARC 404. In all these decisions, the view taken was that a revisional court in suitable cases is entitled to take additional evidence and while exercising the power of taking additional evidence, the revisonal court has to act on the principles contained in Order XLI. Rule 27, C.P.C.

 A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that petitioners' application for admitting additional evidence on record has been rejected on a number of grounds and it is not correct to say that the said application has been rejected solely on the ground that the revisional court does not possess any power to admit additional evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. It would appear that the revisional court has also held that the petitioners have no right in law to contest the release application or to challenge the order releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord. In all those cases on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioners, it was held that the additional evidence in revision can be admitted in suitable cases on the principles contained in Order LXI, Rule 27, C.P.C., but before that power could be exercised, it has to be seen by the court that a right vests in the party seeking to bring additional evidence on record.

Allahabad High Court

Suraj Bhan Jain And Another vs Ist Additional District Judge, on 4 September, 1997

Equivalent citations: 1998 (1) AWC 266

Bench: J Gupta

Print Page

Whether court can permit production of additional evidence in civil revision?

 That said, even the revision under Section 115 of CPC is a continuation of the original suit proceedings. The Code provides for procedural steps to be taken--for example, placing evidence on record --both at the trial stage and at the appellate stage, but hardly any specific provision, again for placing evidence, at the revisional stage. Even Order 41, Rule 27 permits additional evidence at the appellate stage, not at the revisional stage.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 497 of 2016

Decided On: 06.09.2019

Rukminibai Motiram Kshirsagar  Vs.  Manoramabai Mallikarjun Bagale

Print Page

Whether appellate court can direct the trial court to dispose of suit on merit after it has allowed the application for production of additional evidence?

When an application for adducing additional evidence is allowed the appellate court has two options open to it. It may record the evidence itself or it may direct the trial court to do so. Order XLI Rule 28 of the CPC reads as under:

28. Mode of taking additional evidence - Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court may either take such evidence, or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate Court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court.

10. For the aforementioned purpose, in our considered opinion, the High Court could not have directed the trial court to dispose of the suit after taking evidence. Such an order of remand could be only in terms of Order XLI Rule 23, Order XLI Rule 23A or Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code. None of the said provisions have any application in the instant case.

11. This Court in Shanti Devi and Ors. v. Daropti Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/8790/2006 : (2006) 13 SCC 775 has held as under:

But the same by itself could not be a ground for remitting the entire suit to the learned trial judge upon setting aside the decree of the learned trial court. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5201 of 2009 

Decided On: 03.08.2009

 H.P. Vedavyasachar Vs.  Shivashankara and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

Citation: (2009) 8 SCC 231, AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 394

Print Page