The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide powers of the lower appellate court to allow additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as interpreted by relevant judgments from the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. A suit for possession being Original Suit No.200 of 1995 (Rahul Khanna Vs. Sukhram) was filed by the present respondent no.1/plaintiff against one Sukhram which was dismissed on 08.10.2010. Consequently, the plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No.72 of 2010, however, only a few days after the dismissal of the suit i.e. on 13.10.2010, the defendant Sukhram sold the said property to the present petitioner who was then made one of the respondents/defendants in the pending appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant/respondent no.1 moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence in appeal for adjudication. This application has been allowed by the learned lower appellate court vide order dated 12.09.2014 and while doing so it has been specifically stated in the order that validity and veracity of such documents which are produced will depend upon the hearing of the parties, till then the documents be kept on record as part of the record.

2. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The ground for challenge is that the lower appellate court can allow adducing the additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on extremely limited grounds which are clearly spelt in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ordinarily such an application for adducing additional evidence should not be allowed but it can only be allowed where such an evidence was refused by the trial court or the party which is seeking to produce such additional evidence establishes that even after due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Such grounds were not available to the petitioner and therefore the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not have been allowed by the learned lower appellate court.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, on the other hand has argued that the court has wide powers under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure where the lower appellate court can allow production of any additional evidence if according to him it is necessary for the pronouncement of judgment, or for any other substantial cause. The learned lower appellate court has cleared stated in its order that it will examine the validity and veracity of these additional evidences after hearing final arguments and same have been kept on record.

5. This Court finds that there is no anomaly in the order of the lower appellate court. In any case, the lower appellate court feels that such a document which has been produced as an additional evidence is required for pronouncement of judgment or for reaching a conclusion, then only it will be read in evidence. Such powers are given to the learned lower appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 and refers to paragraphs 49 and 52, which are reproduced as under:-

“49. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out 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, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judg