IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

228 FAO-2561-2021(O&M)

Date of decision: 23.04.2026 Sonu Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Dhan Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-11343-CII-2021 This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for adducing additional evidence by way of MLR of Ashif Khan as Annexure A1; and order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra as Annexure A2.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant wants to adduce his evidence by way of tendering the MLR and order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat before this Court and therefore, the present application be allowed.

Heard.

It is the clear case of the applicant/appellant that the damage to his Ashok Leyland was caused by the offending vehicle in the presence of eyewitness Ashif Khan. Admittedly, said Ashif Khan has not been examined by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. Now by way of additional evidence, the applicant wishes to produce the MLR of said Ashif Khan and the appellant himself before this Court as Annexure A1 collectively by way of additional evidence. There is no reason forthcoming from the application or by the applicant/appellant at the time of arguments as to why aforesaid documents were not produced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal.

For leading additional evidence before the Appellate Court, Order 41 Rule 27 (1) CPC, mandates as follows:

“27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if— (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be exam med.

(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.”

A perusal of the above provision shows that the scope of Order

41 Rule 27(1) of the CPC is very clear. No doubt, the provision enables the party to file additional evidence at the first and second appellate stages. However, Rule 27(1)(aa) stipulates that such additional evidence can be permitted only if the party requesting it must be able to prove that, despite their best efforts, they were unable to introduce the additional evidence in the initial proceeding. Thus, the basic principle for admitting additional evidence is that the party appealing is able to establish that there was a valid reason for not submitting such evidence at the trial stage. As noted above, in the present case, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to give any reason whatsoever as to why the said document was not produced by the applicant before the ld. Tribunal.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA 16899 of 1996 “Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India” has held that parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, unless they have shown that despite due diligence, they were unable to produce such evidence.

Reference may also be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.10195 of 2013 titled as “Govt. of Karnataka and Another Vs. K.C. Subramanya & Others” wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:-

“6.On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously clear that the party can s