JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

CM. No. 25444/2020

1. This is an application filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC', for short) for bringing additional evidence on record. The additional evidence that the appellant intends to bring on record are: (i) Affidavit of Ranjit Singh Chauhan, working as Company Secretary-cum-Joint General Manager (Legal) with the appellant company, to buttress that the suit has been filed through a duly authorised person; (ii) The copies of the Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the appellant dated April 09, 1986, and June 15-16, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as `Board Meetings'). The documents are sought to be brought on record primarily in view of the observation of the Trial Court that the appellant company had failed to place on record the aforesaid documents. As per the understanding of the appellant, the same was not required to be produced in view of the production of duly notarised Power of Attorney dated November 30, 2004, in favour of Sanjiv Agrawal, the then Company Secretary, to obviate the technicality which resulted in the dismissal of the suit.

2. The affidavit has been filed by Ranjit Singh Chauhan, Company Secretary-cum-Joint General Manager (Legal), wherein in paragraph 4 he has also stated that the aforesaid Minutes of the Board Meetings were not traceable and accordingly could not be filed before the Trial Court. After the pronouncement of the impugned judgment dated February 18, 2020, the appellant carried out an extensive search of its records and found the old Minutes books containing Minutes of Board Meetings dated April 09, 1986, and June 15-16, 1987. It is stated that the said Board Meetings clearly confirm delegation of powers in favour of the Managing Director who may sub-delegate such powers from time to time as per the requirement of the company. It is also stated that at the time of institution of the suit Sanjiv Agrawal was the Company Secretary and was authorised vide Power of Attorney dated July 16, 1996. At the time of leading evidence, the appellant had adduced the evidence of Sanjiv Agrawal as PW1. Since the original Power of Attorney dated July 16, 1996, was not readily available, he produced the latest Power of Attorney dated November 30, 2004 in his favour.

3. A reply has been filed to this application by the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as `respondent') stating that Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (a) of CPC stipulates certain exceptional situations when additional evidence can be taken on record, none of which arises in this case. It is also stated by the counsel for the respondent that the appellant had purposely not filed the documents on record, though it was in possession of the same.

4. It is submitted that Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC allows leading of additional evidence in an appeal, subject to the conditions laid down in the Rule. Mr. Chaudhri contended that none of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC were satisfied by the appellant in the present case. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148, wherein it was held that the discretion of the Court to allow additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is to be used sparingly and where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies, fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce such judgment. It was further held that it is not for the appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by the parties in the Trial Court. The inadvertence of a party or its inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the part