Back
1996 Supreme(Raj) 1395
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
Bohra Tahir Ali - Appellant
Versus
Nemi Chand - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1312 of 1995.
Decided On : 28-11-1996
The appellate court can only admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in limited circumstances, such as when the trial court refused to admit evidence that should have been admitted, or when the party seeking to produce additional evidence shows that they could not have produced it with due diligence at the time of the trial.
Headnote:
ORDER 41 RULE 27 CPC - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - REMAND - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER 41 RULE 27 CPC - ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - CONDITIONS - POWER OF APPELLATE COURT TO REMAND CASE FOR FRESH DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, material alteration, and reasonable and bona fide necessity. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed and moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to admit additional evidence of plaintiff's subsequent business venture in Poona. The lower appellate court allowed the application and remanded the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity for fresh decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lower appellate court erred in admitting the additional evidence and remanding the case. The defendant failed to show that he could not have produced the evidence with due diligence before the trial court. The fact of plaintiff's business in Poona did not relate to subsequent events and was not covered by the ratio of Basti Chand Bhansali's case and Ramesh Kumar case.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court can remand the case to the trial court with a direction to decide a particular issue afresh after accepting the application submitted under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code? 2. Whether the defendant could produce additional evidence of plaintiff's subsequent business venture in Poona under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC allows the appellate court to admit additional evidence in certain circumstances, such as when the trial court refused to admit evidence that should have been admitted, or when the party seeking to produce additional evidence shows that they could not have produced it with due diligence at the time of the trial. 2. The additional evidence must relate to subsequent events that have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects that bear on the moulding of the relief.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the parties to appear before the lower appellate court for a decision on the appeal within one month.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The appellate court's authority to admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is limited to specific circumstances, such as when the trial court erroneously refused to admit evidence that should have been admitted or when the party seeking to produce additional evidence demonstrates that it could not have been produced with due diligence at the time of trial (!) .
-
The additional evidence must pertain to subsequent events that have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects relevant to the relief sought. The court’s power to remand for a fresh decision is also recognized under this provision (!) .
-
In the case discussed, the appellate court erred in admitting additional evidence regarding a subsequent business venture of the plaintiff in Poona and remanding the issue of reasonable and bona fide necessity for fresh decision, as the defendant failed to establish that he could not have produced this evidence with due diligence earlier (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the appellate court should generally not go beyond the record of the lower court or take new evidence unless specific conditions are met, such as the evidence being unavailable despite due diligence or the need for the court to consider documents or witnesses for proper adjudication (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the fact of the plaintiff's business in Poona was not related to subsequent events that materially affect the case, and thus, the admission of such evidence was improper (!) .
-
It was also noted that the appellate court's remand to decide a particular issue afresh must be based on valid grounds, particularly when the evidence relates to subsequent events that materially impact the case. The appellate court's decision to remand in this instance was found to be illegal (!) (!) .
-
The judgment underscores the importance of proper appreciation of case law by judicial officers and cautions against verbatim incorporation of pleadings and documents without proper discussion and analysis, emphasizing the need for concise facts, proper reasoning, and judicial discretion (!) .
-
The revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the parties were directed to appear before the lower appellate court for a fresh decision within the prescribed timeframe (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
(i) The plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit for eviction relating to the property in question on the grounds of default in making payment of rent, material alteration and reasonable and bona fide necessity.
(ii) The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1990. The defendant non petitioner preferred appeal against the said decree and judgment.
(iii) In the appellate court the defendant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, stating therein that the plaintiff had started sweet business in the name and style of BADSHAH SWEETS at 267, M.G. Road Poona. It was further alleged that this fact came to his notice on 1.8.1995. It was proved that additional evidence may be ordered to be taken regarding this subsequent event.
(iv) Reply of this application was filed by the plaintiff petitioner duly supported by an affidavit. It was stated in the reply that business of Badshah Sweets belongs to Asgar Ali and the plaintiff was not at all related with the said business. Trade Licence under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 was issued on 27.12.1990 in the name of said Asgar Ali. Police Licence was also in his name. Both these documents were produced by the plaintiff in the lower appellate court.
(v) The lower appellate court accepted the application of the defendant non-petitioner vide impugned order dated 16.10.95 and issue No. 2 relating to reasonable and bona fide necessity was remitted to the trial court for fresh decision.
(vi) This order has been assailed in this revision by the plaintiff petitioner.
