Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - True Test Is Whether Appellate Court Can Pronounce Judgment Without Considering Additional Evidence Sought To Be Adduced: Supreme Court

In a judgment delivered on Thursday (10 March 2022), the Supreme Court explained Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances.

The court observed that an application seeking to adduce additional evidence can be allowed where (1) the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and (2) the evidence has a direct and (3) 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.

"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", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

In this case, the appellant before the High Court filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and proposed to bring on record certain sale deeds and the certified copy of the judgment and award passed in other land acquisition cases, which he contended, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value. The High Court dismissed the application observing that the application does not satisfy the requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 96 of the CPC. 

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the High Court while considering the application for additional evidence has not appreciated the fact that the documents which were sought to be produced a  might have a bearing on determination of the fair market value of the acquired land. "It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose. It cannot be disputed that the claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to the fair market value of his land.", the bench noted.

In this context, the bench explained the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC as follows:

4. 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 CPC 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 4 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 CPC 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 (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.

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :  Order 41 Rule 27 - The appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances - 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 - 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 - 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)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Awarding of fair compensation to the landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - The claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to the fair market value of his land. (Para 3.1)

Summary: High Court dismissed an application for additional evidence filed by the appellant to bring on record certain sale deeds and certified copy of the judgments and awards passed in other land acquisition cases, which he con -tended, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value -Allowed - It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - There was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence.

Case details:

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand | CA 1760 OF 2022 | 10 March 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna