TRIPURA HIGH COURT
T. Vaiphei, J.
Rakhi Debbarma —Applicant
versus
Sanghamitra Roy and Ors. —Respondents
I.A.No.375 of 2017 in RFA No.22 of 2016
Decided on 5.9.2017

IMPORTANT POINT
The basic rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties must be determined on the basis of the date of filing of the suit and a court of law would not take into account events happening after the institution of the suit. However, it is equally well-settled that in appropriate cases and in exceptional circumstances, a court may depart from this rule and for doing full and complete justice or to shorten litigation, it may take into consideration subsequent events. For that purpose, an appellate court may also allow additional evidence in the form of documentary or oral evidence.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1973—Order 41 Rule 27—Additional evidence at appeal stage—May be allowed to be produced if one of the conditions laid down in Rule 27 was satisfied—Appellant-plaintiff filed title suit for cancellation of registered sale deed allegedly executed under coercion and pressure in favour of defendant No.1—Plaintiff filed criminal complaint and police filed charge sheet for offences under Section 386/34 IPC—Suit was dismissed prior to filing of charge-sheet and appellant sought to produce certified copy of charge-sheet as additional evidence—Rights of the parties are to be determined on basis of date of filing of suit—In appropriate cases and in exceptional circumstances for doing complete justice court could take in consideration subsequent events and appellate court might allow additional evidence—However such additional evidence could not be permitted without pleadings on record—Appellant though wanted to bring subsequent event of defendants being charge-sheeted in regard to execution of sale deed but failed to amend the plaint—Application for additional evidence was liable to be dismissed.

       Held: As for the remaining two documents, which came into existence subsequently, the question to be determined is whether the three conditions are satisfied. In my opinion, the documents in question naturally could not have been produced by the petitioner at or before the impugned judgment was passed by the trial as they came into existence only after the disposal of the suit and are thus related to subsequent events. The basic rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties must be determined on the basis of the date of filing of the suit and a court of law would not take into account events happening after the institution of the suit. However, it is equally well-settled that in appropriate cases and in exceptional circumstances, a court may depart from this rule and for doing full and complete justice or to shorten litigation, it may take into consideration subsequent events. For that purpose, an appellate court may also allow additional evidence in the form of documentary or oral evidence.

       The net effect of the decisions extracted in the foregoing is that a civil court, in appropriate cases and in exceptional circumstances, may take into consideration subsequent events. For this purpose, an appellate court may also allow additional evidence in the form of documentary evidence or oral evidence. In the instant case, the applicant, however, is not yet out of the woods and has still to cross another hurdle, namely, whether additional evidence can be allowed to be admitted without pleadings to that effect.

       Thus, it is obvious that without specific pleadings in that regard, evidence could not be led in since it is a settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked unless there is a pleading. In the instant case, apart from the pleadings made in this application, the foundational pleadings are not there at this stage. True, the additional evidence sought to be adduced are in connection with the subsequent events, which were obviously not there at the time of disposal of the suit. The essential facts constituting the subsequent events for which additional evidence are sought to be led in are, no doubt, pleaded in paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of this application, but they cannot take the place of pleadings in the plaint. In other words, the averments in this application for the purpose of allowing leave to adduce additional evidence cannot be a substitute for pleadings on the plaint, which can be done only by way of amending the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil PC. But no attempt is made even now by the applicant to amend the plaint to incorporate the relevant subsequent pleadings for which additional evidence is sought to be adduced. In other words, no evidence can be let in without any pleading. Independently of the pleadings in the plaint, this Court cannot take into consideration such evidence unless there is a pleading to that effect in the plaint. In the view that I have taken, there is no sufficient ground for granting leave to the applicant to adduce additional evidence.

       The result of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this application, which is hereby dismissed. (Paras 7, 10, 11 and 12)

       Result: Application dismissed.