The production of additional evidence in an appellate court is an exception, not a rule. It rests on the court’s judicial discretion to admit evidence only when it deems such material essential for pronouncing a satisfactory judgment or for other substantial causes, and not to fill gaps in a party's case.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2010, Smt. Namrata Saraswat vs. Bhupendra Singh , rejecting the application filed by the defendant-respondent (petitioner), under Rule 27 of Order XLI C.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) Smt. Namrata Saraswat, instituted Original Suit No. 1501 of 1998, Smt. Namrata Saraswat vs. Sri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate , in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ghaziabad for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.10.1992 executed by the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’), in favour of the respondent of the property in question. It was pleaded inter alia in the plaint that on 13.08.1990 petitioner was allotted residential plot (property in dispute) by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, and the petitioner on 15.10.1992 executed an agreement to sell in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.43,620/-. Rs. 43,000/- was paid in advance as part payment of the consideration and respondent was put in possession over the property in dispute. In the said agreement for the sell, it was provided that the sale deed was to be executed by the petitioner within one month after first getting the lease deed executed in his favour from the Ghaziabad Development Authority through Adhivakta Sahakari Awas Samiti Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Samiti’) and thereafter obtaining the permission to sell the plot in question from the Samiti. After being noticed, the petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein the petitioner pleaded that after the execution of the lease deed in his favor by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, defendant was declared to be sub- lessee and the agreement to sell the property in dispute was under misconception. The permission sought by the petitioner to transfer the plot in favour of the respondent was refused by the Samiti. It was also pleaded that being sub-lessee, the petitioner was not competent to transfer the plot and as such the agreement to sell was not enforceable. Both the parties led their evidence to prove their case. The two important issues apart from other framed by the trial court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, were whether the respondent as per the facts of the case, was entitled for decree of specific performance and whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The petitioner though filed his evidence paper No. 22-Ga, but thereafter remained absent and his opportunity to lead evidence was closed. The trial court decided the issue of willingness and readiness against the respondent and the suit filed by the respondent was partly decreed by the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2010 passed by Civil Judge, S