Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 1642
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Phukan : S.S.M.Quadri
State Of Rajasthan
Versus
T.N.Sahani
Case No. : 5863 of 2000
Date of Decision : 10/12/00
An appellate court should decide applications for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. along with the appeal. Such evidence may be admitted to ensure a more satisfactory judgment, regardless of whether the current record is sufficient, and cannot be rejected solely because an amendment application was dismissed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 27 and Order 6, Rule 17 - Additional evidence in appellate court - Dismissal of application for amendment of grounds of appeal under Order 6, Rule 17 does not automatically justify dismissal of application for production of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 - Even if the record is sufficient to pronounce judgment, the Court may admit additional evidence in the interest of justice to pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner (Para 4).
(B) Timing of disposal - Application for production of additional evidence should be decided along with the hearing of the appeal on merits to ascertain if documents are necessary for a satisfactory judgment; deciding such application prior to hearing the appeal is inappropriate (Para 4).
Facts of the case:
In proceedings related to acquisition, an appellant filed applications for amendment of appeal grounds and for production of additional evidence before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the amendment application and, consequently, dismissed the application for additional evidence, reasoning that since the amendment seeking to place documents on record was disallowed, such documents could not be required for pronouncing the judgment.
Findings of Court:
The reason provided for dismissing the application for additional evidence was found untenable. The Court held that it is within the power of the appellate court to consider additional evidence to fill gaps or resolve obscurities to reach a more satisfactory conclusion.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of an amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 precludes the admission of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, and the appropriate stage for deciding an application for additional evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that an application under Order 41, Rule 27 should be decided along with the appeal. The appellate court may admit additional evidence to ensure the judgment is passed in a more satisfactory manner, and such a decision should not be preemptively based on the rejection of an amendment application.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(1) LEAVE is granted.
(2) THE State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, passed on an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. in SBCMA 413/91. We are not adverting to the merits of the case because the matter has to be decided by the High Court. Suffice it to mention that the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 as well as another application under Order 6, Rule 17 praying for amendment of the grounds of appeal, were filed by the appellant in the said appeal before the High Court.
(3) THE application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 came to be dismissed. Taking that aspect into consideration, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 41, Rule 27 also as in its view, where the amendment application of the appellant, seeking amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal in respect of the documents sought to be placed on records, was disallowed, "How can the said documents be required for pronouncing the judgment or for any other substantial cause".
(4) IT may be pointed out that this Court, as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526], pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41, Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the Court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, it could not require additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the Court to consider, at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits, whether the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose, amended provision of Order 41, Rule 27 (b), C.P.C. can be invoked. So the application under Order 41, Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner, it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
(5) IN view of the fact that the appeal arises out of acquisition proceedings initiated in 1969, we expect the High Court to give priority and dispose of the appeal and the application expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
