Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts based on evidence are final in a second appeal. Additionally, a party cannot use appellate provisions to introduce additional evidence merely to cure evidentiary omissions or lacunae in their trial case.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Scope - Concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court and the first appellate court after careful appreciation of evidence, which remain unassailable, cannot be interfered with in a second appeal as they do not constitute substantial questions of law. (Paras 37, 38)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Additional evidence - An application for production of additional evidence at an appellate stage is not permissible if the applicant had ample opportunity to present documentation or testimony during the trial and is merely attempting to fill lacunae in the case. (Para 35)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a personal loan advanced to the appellant, which the appellant contended was actually a partial reimbursement of litigation expenses arising from family property disputes. Both the trial court and the first appellate court rejected the appellant's version, finding that the loan agreement was proved through bank records and tax filings, while the defense regarding the adjustment of litigation expenses remained unsubstantiated and contradictory. The appellant sought to introduce additional witness evidence during the appellate process to challenge these findings.

Findings of Court:
The courts below concurrently found that the financial transaction was a loan, as the appellant failed to provide specific particulars or corroborating records for the alleged legal expenses. The attempt to introduce new evidence at the appellate stage was viewed as an effort to bridge evidentiary gaps rather than a genuine requirement of justice.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the appellate court erred in not adjudicating an application for additional evidence, whether the trial court wrongly closed the evidence of the appellant’s remaining witnesses, and whether the burden of proof was incorrectly shifted regarding the nature of the financial transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court is not required to entertain applications for additional evidence intended to fill lacunae after a party has failed to present available evidence during the trial. Furthermore, factual findings arrived at by lower courts based on logical appreciation of documentary and testimonial evidence do not meet the criteria for interference in a second appeal unless they exhibit perversity or legal error.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff claims recovery of loan; defendant alleges adjustment against prior litigation expenses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. framing of issues and presentation of testimonial and documentary evidence by both parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. trial and first appellate courts concurrently found the debt proved and the defense of set-off unsubstantiated. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. appellant challenges evidentiary procedure and seeks to introduce additional evidence (order 41 rule 27). (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. evidence analysis reveals contradictory documents and failure of defendant to prove liability set-off. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. no substantial question of law exists where only factual re-appreciation is sought; appeal dismissed. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment dated 01.08.2024 whereby the learned District Judge has upheld vide Order dated 19.04.2022 of the learned Civil Judge, who has decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent in the sum of Rs.2,20,000/- along with the interest @ 8% p.a. on the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of decree.

2. The Civil Suit bearing CS No. 93596/2016 was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent, for Recovery of the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- along with the interest.

3. The facts in brief, the case of the Plaintiff is that he was carrying on business as the sole proprietor of M/s Western Wear Inc. In May 2009, at the request of the Defendant/Appellant, the Plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to him through two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each dated 04.05.2009 and 06.05.2009 respectively. The said cheques were duly encashed by the Defendant on 22.05.2009. It was agreed between the parties that the loan amount would be repaid within six months. However, despite the expiry of the agreed period, repeated demands, and service of a legal notice dated 21.02.2011, the Defendant failed to repay the loan amount. Consequently, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest.

4. In the Written Statement, the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff harboured a grudge against him. It was averred that the Defendant’s father, Mr. Prithi Raj Tiwari, had instituted litigation concerning Property No. 4366, Near Vidya Mandir Wali Gali, Arya Samaj Chowk, Bhatinda, Punjab, and had borne the entire litigation expenses, amounting to approximately Rs.10,00,000/-. Upon the culmination of the proceedings, Mr. Prithi Raj Tiwari distributed the respective shares of the legal heirs in the said property. It was specifically pleaded that the Plaintiff, Mr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari, being one of the legal heirs, received his share in the property on 06.10.2006. Likewise, the shares of Mr. Inderjeet Tiwari and the other legal heirs were also disbursed on the same date.

5. The Defendant further pleaded that his father, Mr. Prithi Raj Tiwari, passed away on 10.03.2007. It was averred that during the lifetime of the Defendant’s father, the Plaintiff had undertaken and assured that he would contribute towards and reimburse his share of the litigation expenses, which allegedly amounted to Rs.5,02,000/-. According to the Defendant, the two cheques aggregating to Rs.2,00,000/- relied upon by the Plaintiff were not issued as a loan but were issued in partial discharge of the Plaintiff’s liability towards the said litigation expenses. It was further asserted that the Plaintiff had also issued a cheque for Rs.63,300/- dated 25.05.2008 from his bank account towards the said liability, and the amount was paid to Mr. Rohit Tiwari at Mumbai. On the basis of these averments, the Defendant contended that even after the aforesaid payments, a substantial amount remained due and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, JSanjeev Tiwari, S/o Late Sh. P.R.Tiwari - AppellantVersusVijay Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Sh. Pyare Lal Tiwari – RespondentRSA No. 184 of 2024 & CM APPL. 62781 of 2024 (stay)Decided On : 10-06-2026

Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts based on evidence are final in a second appeal. Additionally, a party cannot use appellate provisions to introduce additional evidence merely to cure evidentiary omissions or lacunae in their trial case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Sanjeev Tiwari, S/o Late Sh. P.R.Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Sh. Pyare Lal Tiwari – Respondent
RSA No. 184 of 2024 & CM APPL. 62781 of 2024 (stay)
Decided On : 10-06-2026