Point of Law: Inadvertence of party or his inability to understand legal issues involved or wrong advice of a pleader or negligence of a pleader or that party did not realise importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial cause" within meaning of this rule.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

Plaintiff is the appellant, who aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018 (CIS CNR No. HPKU 01-001408-2018) CIS Case No. (Reg. No.) 8/2018 (21/2018) whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu in Civil Suit No. 87 of 2013, has filed the instant appeal.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery, which after a proper trial was decreed by the learned Trial Court. However, the appeal filed against the same has been allowed by allowing the application filed by the defendant/respondent to adduce additional evidence.

3. It is vehemently contended by Shri Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, that the judgment passed by the learned first Appellate Court is palpably wrong and, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law, given the fact that the defendant was granted as many as seven opportunities to lead its evidence and even then it chose to examine only the proprietor of the firm Shri Sharwan Kumar. Earlier to that the defendant had already been granted as many as seven opportunities on 30.07.2016, 24.09.2016, 22.11.2016, 21.01.2017, 22.04.2017 and 24.06.2017 and thus there was no denial of justice or prejudice being caused to the defendant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

4. It would be apposite to quote Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which reads as under:-

27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if —

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

[(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or]

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.

5. At the outset, it needs to be observed that Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) gives discretion to the appellate Court under this provision to receive and admit additional evidence is not arbitrary one but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in that rule. If the additional evidence is allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing reception of such evidence, it will be a case of improper exercise of discretion and the additional evidence so brought on record will have to be ignored.

6. Equally settled is the proposition that the additional evidence should not be permitted at the appellate stage simply in order to enable one of the parties to remove certain lacunae in presenting its case at the proper stage and to fill in gaps. Of course, the position is different where the appellate Court itself requires certain evidence to be adduced in order to enable it to do justice between the parties. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to lead fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing the lacunae in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence and not for removing the lacunae in the case of the parties.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh , AIR 1951 SC 193 has observed that Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC gives discretion to the appellate Court but