1. Appeal against order disallowing certified copy of mutation as additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 683
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Variava : S.S.M.Quadri
Wadi
Versus
Amilal
Case No. : 3994 of 2002
Date of Decision : 7/12/02
Under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the CPC, appellate courts may admit additional evidence if it is essential for pronouncing a satisfactory judgment in the interest of justice, regardless of party negligence, to prevent a defective decision.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) - Production of additional evidence in appellate court - General principle is that parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence in the appellate court to cure a lacuna or fill up a gap in a case - However, under clause (b), the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced if the court requires it to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause (Paras 6, 7).
(B) Interest of Justice - The requirement or need for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) is that of the appellate court, keeping in mind that the interest of justice is paramount - If the court feels that pronouncing a judgment without such evidence would result in a defective decision, the enabling provision allows its admission - Invocation of this clause does not depend upon the vigilance or negligence of the parties (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding shares in agricultural land, where the eligibility of the daughters for a share depended on whether the original tenant had died before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the tenant died in 1951. An appellate authority subsequently remanded the case after noticing a copy of a mutation entry dated June 11, 1961. However, a higher revenue authority declined to admit a certified copy of the same mutation as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decision later upheld by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the correct date of death was the clinching issue to pronounce a satisfactory judgment. As the mutation entry would throw considerable light on this issue, it was necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. The higher revenue authority erred in declining to admit the certified copy of the mutation as additional evidence.
Issues: Whether the board of revenue was justified in declining to admit a certified copy of a mutation entry filed as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) is an enabling provision that allows an appellate court to admit additional evidence if it is necessary to pronounce an effective judgment and avoid a defective decision. The court's need for such evidence to serve the interests of justice overrides considerations regarding the negligence of the parties.
Result: Civil appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
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?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether mutation copy was rightly disallowed as additional evidence by the Board of Revenue. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Mutation would clarify death date of khatedar tenant; appellate court may admit additional evidence for pronounced judgment. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Under Order 41 rule 27(b) CPC, appellate court may admit additional evidence if required for pronouncing judgment. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned orders set aside; case remanded for fresh disposal after opportunity for rebuttal. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. When can an appellate court admit additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 CPC?
When the court requires it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, to avoid defective decision. (Para 7 , 8 )
(1) HEARD Mr. B.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rohit Minocha, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
(2) LEAVE is granted.
(3) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan (Jodhpur bench) in special appeal no. 1152 of 1998 dated April 10, 2000.
(4) THE short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the board of revenue was justified in declining to admit a certified copy of mutation no. 49 dated June 11, 1961 filed as additional evidence under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
(5) ONE Rupa Ram was khatedar tenant of 130 bighas of the agricultural land situated in village Dakwa, tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu, Rajasthan (for short, the suit land). He had a son and three daughters. The appellant is one of his daughters and the first respondent is his son. She along with another sister filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that they had half share in the suit land and the first respondent had only 1/4th share: and that the sale effected by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent was null and void and did not operate against them. The germane issue in the suit was whether Rupa Ram died in the year 1951 or in 1960/61. If he had died after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his daughters would be entitled to a share in the suit land. But if he had died prior to the coming into force of the said Act, they would not be entitled to a share in the suit land. Taking the view that Rupa Ram died in 1951, the assistant collector dismissed the suit. On appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, the revenue appellate authority, before whom a xerox copy of mutation no. 49 dated June 11, 1961, was produced, took note of that document and set aside the order of the trial court; it remanded the case to the assistant collector for fresh disposal in accordance with law and thus, allowed the appeal on May 31, 1991. Against the said order of the appellate authority, the first respondent went in appeal before the board of revenue, Rajasthan. Having noted that an application under order 41 rule 27 C.P.C. to place a certified copy of the mutation no. 49 dated June 11, 1961 was filed before it, the board of revenue declined to admit it in evidence and set aside the order of the appellate authority by allowing the appeal on April 30, 1997. That order was upheld by a learned single judge of the High Court in writ petition no. 2652 of 1997 by his order dated August 19, 1998. The appellant unsuccessfully pursued the matter in special appeal no 1152 of 1998 before a division bench of the High Court, which was dismissed on April 10, 2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
(6) IT cannot be disputed that the correct date of death of Rupa Ram would clinch the issue and enable the court to pronounce a satisfactory judgment in the suit. A perusal of mutation no. 49, if proved, would throw considerable light on the issue. On the question of admission of that document by the appellate court, it would be necessary to notice the relevant provision of order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
"27. Production of additional evidence in appellate court. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court, but if - (a) *** *** *** (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."
(7) NOW it is clear that rule 27 deals with production of additional evidence in the appellate court. The general principle incorporated in sub-rule (1) is that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional
