The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consideration of applications for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. should focus on whether the evidence is necessary for the appellate court to pronounce a satisfactory judgment.

Mr. Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. Chandra Kant for the respondents except respondent No.10 and the learned counsel, Mr. Parth Gaurav for the respondent No.10.

2. Perused the impugned order dated 06.11.2015 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Siwan in Title Appeal No.38 of 2010 whereby the learned lower appellate court has rejected the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-appellant-petitioner.

3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that lower appellate court has rejected the application only on the ground that the documents were not produced before the lower court and this application has been filed after lapse of more than 18 years from the date of filing the suit being Title Suit No.252 of 1996.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, 2013 (1) PLJR 48(SC) : (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148 has held that “an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. 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, the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court vide paragraph 38 (PLJR).

5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below has not at all considered the provision as contained in Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. The Court below has also not recorded any finding as to whether the documents are relevant or not. The Court below has also not recorded any finding that the Court requires the documents for pronouncing satisfactory judgment or not. Only on technical ground that the documents were not produced before the trial court and that it has been filed after 18 years before the appellate court has rejected the application.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, 2016 (1) PLJR 394 (SC) and submitted that there is no universal law that whenever an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. is filed by the appellant before the lower appellate court, the application has to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. According to the learned counsel, the Supreme Court in this decision has directed the lower appellate court to decide the application for additional evidence afresh. From perusal of the decision at paragraph 18, it appears that in that case, the Supreme Court has considered the principles and held that the words “for any other substantial cause” must be read with the word “requires”, which is set out at the commencement of the provision, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this rule would apply as noticed by the Privy Council. It is under these circumstances such a power could be exercised. Therefore, when the first appellate court did not find the necessity to allow the application, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could, in exercise of its power under Section 115 C.P.C. have interfered with such an order, particularly when the whole appeal is not before the Court. It is only in the circumstances when the appellate cou