Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Gudi Satyanarayana Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Maggidi Narsaiah (died) per L.Rs. & others - Respondents
C.R.P.No.2220 OF 2024
Decided on : 30-07-2024
CPC - Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27, Section 157 - The court emphasized that additional evidence must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, and any prior acceptance without such context is inconsequential.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a petition to admit additional documents as evidence in an ongoing appeal, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. The appellate court allowed the petition, leading to a revision by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court's decision to allow additional evidence was flawed as it was made without the final hearing of the appeal, violating procedural requirements.
Issues: Whether the appellate court properly allowed additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the final hearing of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that additional evidence must be considered only during the final hearing of the appeal, and any prior acceptance is invalid if it lacks judicial reasoning.
Result: The order allowing additional evidence was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal along with the appeal.
ORDER:
Heard Sri Lingam Divakara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M. Mallesham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging propriety and legality of the order dated “11.06.2024 in I.A.No.39 of 2023, in A.S.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Godavarikhani”, whereunder a petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 157 CPC filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs was allowed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the appeal before the lower Court.
4. The appellants/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.139 of 2023 in A.S.No.11 of 2017 on the file of Additional District Judge at Godavarikhani, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, praying the Court that the documents namely certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Rythu Passbook and Simple Sale Deeds etc., may be considered in the interest of justice.
5. The appellants/plaintiffs plea is that they filed petition before the trial Court to receive those documents and the Court dismissed the petition and they filed revision petition before the Hon’ble Court and the Revision Petition was returned and their counsel did not take any steps in respect thereof and in the meanwhile trial Court dismissed the suit and the documents are necessary to decide the case and hence those documents may be considered as additional evidence in the interest of justice.
6. The respondents/defendants filed counter alleging that the petition is filed 7 year after filing of the appeal and there is no mention about the documents in the plaint and so the genuineness of the documents had to be doubted and that the petition is filed to fill up gaps in evidence and that the petitioner having preferred revision petition against the order of dismissal of the petition to receive the documents cannot invoke the provisions of the Order 41 Rule 27 hence petition is liable to be dismissed and the documents cannot be considered at the Appellate stage as per the whims and fancies of the petitioner/appellant.
7. The appellate Court after considering the material on record partly allowed the petitioner I.A.No.139 of 2023 in A.S.No.11 of 2017 vide its order dated 11.06.2024 observing as under:
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents/defendants filed the revision petition.
8. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel on record are as under:
(2) (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 247 in “Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand”.
(3) In Criminal Appeal No.2020 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.198 of 2009 in “Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Doshkhan Samadkhan Sindhi and others.”
(4) 2020 LawSuit (SC) 877 in Civil Appeal No.6325 of 2015, 6326 of 2015 in Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao and another”.
(5) In Civil Appeal No.9106 of 2012 in M/s.Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways and another with Civil Appeal No.9194 of 2012”.
This Court opines that the Judgments relied upon by both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents do not apply to the facts of the present case.
9. The lower Court ordered the documents to be received for considering them as additional evidence on the ground that they are necessary for pronouncing Judgment. But the Court did not give any reasons for coming to the conclusion that the documents are essential for pronouncement of Judgments.
10. It is only on perusal of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties the Court can as
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, not prior.
Additional evidence must be evaluated during the final appeal hearing, not before, ensuring judicial rigor in respecting procedural rules.
Order 41 Rule 27 of Code is a provision which enables party to file additional evidence at first and second appellate stage.
The appellate court must consider applications for additional evidence at the time of hearing the appeal, ensuring relevance to the case.
An appellate court cannot permit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the applicant fails to establish due diligence, and such provisions cannot be invoked....
The admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings requires a clear necessity to support the main issues at hand, as per Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
The court affirmed that additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only permissible if necessary for a just decision, not to remedy deficiencies in the original case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicial exercise of discretion by the Appellate Court in considering applications for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
