O.47 R.27 CPC | While Court Can't Usually Record Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage, Ceratin Exceptions Are Carved Out For Doing So: J&K High Court

However clarifying the circumstances under which an appellate court can allow parties to introduce new evidence during an appeal Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“Normally an appellate court should not allow additional evidence to be produced and decide an appeal on the basis of the material on record…yet said Order 47 Rule (27) proceeds to carve out an exceptions and enumerates the circumstances in which an appellate court can permit leading of additional evidence under clause (a), (aa) or (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 27”

Background:

The case, originating from a dispute over land ownership in Jammu, involved petitioners seeking the quashing of an order passed by the appellate court. The petitioners invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They sought to challenge the appellate court's decision to dismiss their application to introduce additional evidence in the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court.

The background of the matter revealed that the plaintiff had obtained a judgment and decree for a permanent injunction against the defendants regarding a piece of land. The defendants, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal before the appellate court. During the appeal process, they sought to introduce additional evidence, claiming discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence regarding the description and location of the disputed land.

Challenging the dismissal of their application to adduce additional evidence by the appellate court, the petitioners argued that the appellate court's refusal to admit their additional evidence was incorrect and resulted in a failure of justice.

Observations Of The Court:

Upon meticulous consideration of rival contentions Justice Wani reiterated that the admission of additional evidence is not a matter of right but is subject to the discretion of the court.

Examining the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27(1) of the CPC, the court explained that the said provision lays down three circumstances when an appellate court can permit additional evidence.

1. Refusal of Evidence by Trial Court (Clause (a))
   The court clarified that the appellate court can only admit evidence if the trial court unjustifiably refused to admit relevant evidence presented during the trial.
2. Undisclosed Evidence Despite Due Diligence (Clause (aa))
   A party can introduce new evidence if they can prove it was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at trial despite exercising due diligence.
3. Evidence Needed for Judgment or Substantial Cause (Clause (b))
   The appellate court itself can order the production of additional documents or examination of witnesses if deemed necessary to deliver a judgment or for any other significant reason.

Scrutinising the defendants' application and the evidence presented before both courts the bench It found that the defendants failed to demonstrate any of the three conditions under Order 41 Rule 27(1) to justify admitting new evidence.

The court noted that the defendants did not claim the trial court refused relevant evidence, nor did they establish that the new evidence was unavailable during the trial despite due diligence. Additionally, the court determined that the existing evidence on record was sufficient for the appellate court to pronounce judgment.

In light of said observations, the court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and upheld the appellate court's order dismissing the application for additional evidence.

Case Title: Gulab Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment