The acceptance of additional documents in appeal is permissible under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, impacting the re-evaluation of the case.

JUDGMENT

Defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in the second appeal.

2. The suit was on Ext.A1 cheque alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 05.06.2005. The suit was initially decreed by the trial court. However, in the appeal preferred by the defendant, the appellate court set aside the decree of the trial court and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. After the remand, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. This time, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff took up the matter further before this Court in S.A. No. 1489 of 2013. In the said second appeal, the crux of the arguments was that the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court without adverting to the application preferred by the plaintiff for accepting additional documents in evidence. This Court found that the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds for accepting the additional documents produced by him in appeal in evidence and consequently accepted the same in evidence in the second appeal, marked the same as Exts.A8 (a) & (b), A9(a) & (b), A10(a) & (b), A11(a) & (b), A12(a) & (b) and A13(a) & (b) respectively and remitted the matter to the appellate court with a direction to consider the matter afresh on the entire evidence including the additional documents accepted in evidence. Thereupon, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, the appellate court decreed the suit. The defendant is aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate court and hence this second appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant as also the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

4. As noted, the suit is on Ext.A1 cheque alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 05.06.2005. The defendant disputed the signature in Ext.A1 cheque. His specific case in the written statement is that he was not in India on 05.06.2005. The appellate court, on an appraisal of the evidence on record, found in terms of the judgment impugned in the appeal that the defendant has not established the said case. The short question on facts, therefore, is as to whether the defendant has established the case set up by him that he was not in India on

05.06.2005.

5. The learned counsel for the defendant, placing reliance on Ext.B9 emergency certificate issued by the Embassy of India at Riyadh in Saudi Arabia to the defendant, Exts.B12 and B13 passports of the defendant as also Ext.B11 communication issued by the Embassy of India at Riyadh, contended that these materials would show beyond doubt that the defendant was not in India during 2005 and that the finding to the contrary rendered by the lower appellate court is perverse.

6. Ext.B12 is the passport of the defendant valid for the period from 16.06.1994 to 15.06.2004. Ext.B13 is the passport of the defendant valid for the period from 16.11.2007 to 15.11.2017. The specific case of the defendant is that between 15.06.2004 to 16.11.2007, he was overstaying in Saudi Arabia as he could not get his passport renewed for reasons beyond his control. According to him, it is in the said circumstances, he was issued Ext.B9 emergency certificate by the Embassy of India on 23.08.2006 to come back to India. It is stated by the defendant that on the strength of Ext.B9 emergency certificate, he came back to India on 29.08.2006. Ext.B11 is a document produced by the defendant as one issued by the Embassy of India at Riyadh stating that Exts.B12 and B13 passports and Ext.B9 emergency certificate were the only travel documents issued to the defendant. If Exts.B12 and B13 passports and B9 emergency certificate were the only travel documents issued to the defendant, it would appear that the case set up by the defendant that he was overstaying in Saudi Arabia, after the expiry of the term of his first passport till he is issued Ext.B9 emergency certificate is probable. In this context, one of the documents which was a