Question 1? What is the proper use of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for admitting additional evidence in appellate courts? Question 2? What is the tribunal’s duty when the appellate court requires a document to pronounce judgment, in relation to clause (b) of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC? Question 3? What are the consequences of admitting or denying the certified copy of mutation no. 49 dated June 11, 1961 on the judgment and remand?

Key Points: - (!) The appeal concerns whether the Board of Revenue was justified in declining to admit a certified copy of mutation no. 49 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. (!) - (!) Rule 27(1) prohibits additional evidence in appellate courts except under the exemptions in clause (a), (a), or (b). (!) - (!) Clause (b) allows admission of additional evidence if the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment for a substantial cause and to enable a satisfactory judgment. (!) - (!) The Court held that the Board of Revenue ought to have admitted the additional evidence under clause (b) to determine whether Rupa Ram died in 1951 or 1960/61 and to pronounce a proper judgment. (!) - (!) The civil appeal is allowed and remanded for fresh disposal with opportunity for the first respondent to lead further evidence in rebuttal. (!) - (!) The court emphasized that admission of evidence is for the appellate court’s need to pronounce judgment, not for the parties’ negligence. (!) - (!) The judgment remands the case to the assistant collector for disposal in accordance with law after considering the new evidence. (!)

Question 1?

What is the proper use of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for admitting additional evidence in appellate courts?

Question 2?

What is the tribunal’s duty when the appellate court requires a document to pronounce judgment, in relation to clause (b) of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?

Question 3?

What are the consequences of admitting or denying the certified copy of mutation no. 49 dated June 11, 1961 on the judgment and remand?