2026 Supreme(SC) 227

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Gobind Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 of 2011
Decided On : 09-03-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Additional evidence – Parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at appellate stage.
(2) Appeal is ordinarily to be decided on evidence adduced before Trial Court – Appellate Court is not expected to embark upon a fresh fact-finding exercise or permit production of additional evidence as a matter of routine.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – Production of additional evidence in appellate court – Parties to appeal are not entitled to adduce additional evidence – Provision contemplates only three eventualities in which additional evidence may be permitted: first, where court which passed decree has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; second, where party seeking to adduce such evidence establishes that, notwithstanding exercise of due diligence, evidence was not within its knowledge or could not have been produced at the time when decree under appeal was passed; and third, where appellate court itself requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined in order to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause – It is only upon satisfaction of any of the three contingencies that application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC can be entertained – Where appellate court forms an opinion that additional evidence is required to be admitted, it must record reasons for such admission – Appellate court’s inquiry, while considering application for leading additional evidence, is confined to examining whether such evidence is necessary to remove lacuna in the case – Parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at appellate stage. (Paras 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – Production of additional evidence in appellate court – Appeal is ordinarily to be decided on evidence adduced before Trial Court – Appellate Court is not expected to embark upon a fresh fact-finding exercise or permit production of additional evidence as a matter of routine – Where Appellate Court is satisfied that material already available on record is sufficient to enable it to pronounce judgment, it is well within its jurisdiction to confine its consideration to evidence forming part of record of courts below – Once appellant-plaintiffs asserted that they derived valid title to suit property through their forefathers, burden lay squarely upon them to substantiate such claim by producing cogent title deeds in support thereof – However, no such documentary evidence was forthcoming – Present suit being one for declaration of title, it was incumbent upon appellant-plaintiffs, if they indeed possessed a valid title, to adduce their best and complete evidence at stage of trial before court of first instance, where such evidence could have been produced as a matter of right – When appellant plaintiffs themselves asserted title on the basis of long and continuous possession through their predecessors, subsequent attempt to introduce additional evidence at appellate stage assumes little legal significance – Once trial had concluded and decree was under challenge in appeal, appellants could not be permitted to fill gaps in their case by seeking to adduce further material to fortify a claim that was fundamentally flawed – No infirmity in Judgments rendered by High Court. (Paras 11.7, 11.10, 11.12, 11.17 and 12)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against judgment dated 12th August, 2009, and subsequent judgment rendered in review on 15th March, 2011, by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior,1 in First Appeal No. 80 of 1996 and Review Petition No. 300 of 2009, respectively whereby appeal filed by Union of India was allowed and review of appellant was dismissed.

The limited question that arises for consideration is whether High Court’s omission to expressly adjudicate application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC while deciding first appeal has resulted in any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice so as to warrant interference by this Court.

Findings of Court:

Judgments dated 12th August, 2009, in First Appeal No. 80 of 1996 and 15th March, 2011, in Review Petition passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior are hereby affirmed.

Result : Appeals dismissed.