Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. vs Abdul Shukoor

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1251

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Shukoor – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Sr. Adv. Mr. N K Verma, Adv. Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mohd. Usman Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. B. S. Randhawa, Adv. Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv. Mohd. Salman Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Ms. Shaurya Mishra, Adv. Ms. Prabisha Pradeep, Adv. Md. Farman, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The appellate court must consider pleadings before allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of CPC. (!) - Additional evidence should be permitted only if it aligns with the party’s pleadings and is supported by the pleadings, otherwise it may be improper. (!) - The High Court’s reversal of the decree based on additional evidence without proper consideration of pleadings is unsustainable; case remanded for fresh consideration in light of these principles. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Table of Content
1. need for appellate court to consider pleadings. (Para 1)
2. details of specific performance dispute. (Para 2)
3. arguments of appellants and respondent. (Para 3 , 4)
4. discussion on necessity of additional evidence. (Para 5)
5. pleadings must support additional evidence. (Para 6 , 7)
6. requirement of re-examination of the case. (Para 8 , 9)
7. high court judgment deemed unsustainable. (Para 10)
8. civil appeal allowed with orders. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

1. The short issue involved in this Civil Appeal is whether it is necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

2.1 It is the case of the appellants - plaintiffs that on 20.02.1995, the respondent - defendant entered into an agreement to sell his house property for a consideration of Rs.10,67,000. An amount of Rs.2,50,000 was paid on the date of the agreement, while further amount of Rs.2,50,000 was paid on 30.03.1995. The agreement was to be completed within a period of one and a half years. As per the said agreement, if the defendant was no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document