Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC allows parties in an appeal to introduce additional evidence under specific conditions. The provision is discretionary and not a right, aimed at preventing the filling of gaps in evidence rather than broad evidence supplementation.
Main Points:
Courts emphasize that merely filling gaps or correcting procedural lapses without establishing due diligence is insufficient for admissibility under Order 41 Rule 27 ["Suresh Kumar VS Vinay Kumar - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Gulab Singh VS Kuldeep Singh, S/o. Munshi Singh - Jammu and Kashmir"].
Insights:
The order of the appellate court to admit evidence hinges on whether the conditions of non-availability despite due diligence are satisfied ["Subhash Chandra Rathi VS Temple Board, Nathdwara - Rajasthan"], ["Rameshwari Devi VS Rakesh Mishra - Allahabad"].
References:
Order 41 Rule 27 CrPC grants appellate courts the discretion to admit additional evidence, but only under strict conditions, primarily that the party exercising due diligence could not have produced the evidence earlier. The provision aims to prevent parties from filling evidence gaps through casual or negligent behavior, ensuring that evidence is introduced only in exceptional circumstances where non-production was beyond their control.
In the realm of civil litigation, particularly during appellate proceedings, the concept of due diligence plays a pivotal role when parties seek to introduce additional evidence. Many litigants wonder: What is Due Diligence under Order 41 Rule 27 CrPC? Note that while the query references CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), Order 41 Rule 27 pertains to the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure), governing appeals in civil cases. This provision is crucial for maintaining fairness while preventing abuse of the appellate process. This article breaks down the legal principles, conditions, and judicial interpretations to help you navigate this complex area.
This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Due diligence refers to the reasonable and prudent efforts exercised by a party to discover or produce evidence or documents relevant to the case. Rattan Chand VS Duni Chand - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Rattan Chand VS Gopal Sharma - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Nemchand Mahto VS Deoki Devi - Jharkhand (2019) It serves as a prerequisite for seeking permission to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, ensuring genuine efforts were made to produce such evidence during the original trial. Rattan Chand VS Duni Chand - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Rattan Chand VS Gopal Sharma - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Nemchand Mahto VS Deoki Devi - Jharkhand (2019)
The purpose is to uphold the integrity of the trial process. Courts emphasize that parties cannot use appeals as a second chance to fill evidentiary gaps. Instead, due diligence ensures that only evidence truly unavailable earlier is considered, promoting efficiency and justice.
Under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC, a party may seek to produce additional evidence if they demonstrate that, despite exercising due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time of the original decree. NARAIN DAS VS IIND ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, MORADABAD - Allahabad (1998)Mohar Singh VS Bhanwar Singh - Madhya Pradesh (2014)Nemchand Mahto VS Deoki Devi - Jharkhand (2019)
Key conditions include:- The evidence must have been genuinely unavailable despite diligent efforts, not merely overlooked or deliberately withheld. Rattan Chand VS Duni Chand - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Nemchand Mahto VS Deoki Devi - Jharkhand (2019)- The applicant must substantiate claims with specific reasons or evidence of efforts made earlier. NARAIN DAS VS IIND ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, MORADABAD - Allahabad (1998)Mohar Singh VS Bhanwar Singh - Madhya Pradesh (2014)Nemchand Mahto VS Deoki Devi - Jharkhand (2019)
Failure to prove due diligence typically results in rejection, as courts adopt a strict stance to prevent abuse. Rattan Chand VS Duni Chand - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Rattan Chand VS Gopal Sharma - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Nemchand Mahto VS Deoki Devi - Jharkhand (2019)
The court's discretion to admit additional evidence is limited and exercised judiciously. It will not permit evidence that was within the party’s knowledge or producible through reasonable efforts. Rattan Chand VS Duni Chand - Himachal Pradesh (2018)Rattan Chand VS Gopal Sharma - Himachal Pradesh (2018)RAGHUNATH TRIPATHY VS DIBAKAR TRIPATHY - Orissa (1980)
The scope is confined to circumstances like:- Evidence unavailable despite due diligence.- Documents required by the appellate court for pronouncing judgment. Asha Debi VS Moti Lal Shaw - Calcutta (2017)Sukho Devi vs Laxmi Devi - Delhi (2013)
In one case, the court ruled that the discretion to admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 is not a matter of right and must be exercised considering the overall context of the case.Nusli N. Wadia VS Bastion Constructions
Indian courts have consistently interpreted due diligence strictly, often rejecting applications where efforts fall short.
In a dispute over eviction under the Rajasthan Public Premises Act, petitioners sought additional evidence in appeal but failed to show relevance or due diligence. The court held: additional evidence cannot be introduced in an appeal merely to fill gaps in a party's case. The petitioners failed to show the relevance of the documents and did not exercise due diligence in producing them earlier.Shyamlal S/o Motilal Rathi VS Temple Board Nathdwara - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 497 The trial court's rejection was upheld.
Similarly, in a property dispute, petitioners attempted to introduce irrelevant documents without prior pleadings. The court noted: As seen from Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, due diligence is required for the purpose of entertaining an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.M. Manimegalai VS Chellammal - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2127 The application was dismissed as the documents had no bearing on the suit property.
However, courts may allow evidence where due diligence is proven. In an eviction suit, the defendant's predecessor became traceless during proceedings, preventing evidence production. The legal heirs succeeded on appeal, as Rule 27(1)(b) of Order 41 clearly envisages that 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.Vijay Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Bilash Singh VS Most. Soni Kuer Wife of Late Rajendra Mistri - 2018 Supreme(Pat) 1600Vijay Kumar Singh Son of Late Ram Bilash Singh VS Most. Soni Kuer Wife of Late Rajendra Mistri - 2018 Supreme(Pat) 1599
Remand orders allowing additional evidence must adhere to strict norms. In a family land dispute, the appellate court erred by remanding without verifying due diligence: Parties to a case must show due diligence in presenting evidence at the trial stage; failure to do so cannot justify remand.Uma Tiwari vs Brijmohan - 2025 Supreme(MP) 331 The remand was set aside.
Another ruling stressed: The relevant consideration for allowing such application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC is to see whether additional evidence is relevant and has a material bearing on the issues involved before the Court and secondly, whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not providing such additional evidence despite due diligence at earlier point of time.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi VS Uttaradi Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 880
These cases illustrate that relevance, due diligence, and necessity form the triad for success under Order 41 Rule 27.
To strengthen an application:- Document efforts: Maintain records of searches, inquiries, or obstacles encountered.- Prove unavailability: Provide affidavits or corroborative evidence showing why evidence emerged later.- Ensure relevance: Link the evidence directly to case issues.
When opposing, highlight any lapses in diligence or prior knowledge.
Courts prioritize the quest for truth, as echoed in one judgment: 'Truth' has a strange but a firm character of finding its way and coming out... the quest for truth should not get bogged-down merely because a long period has lapsed.Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi VS Uttaradi Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 880 Yet, this does not excuse negligence.
By understanding these principles, litigants can better prepare for appellate battles. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
Word count: Approximately 1050. Sources cited are for illustrative purposes from judicial precedents.
#DueDiligenceCPC, #Order41Rule27, #AdditionalEvidence
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 27 - Request for additional evidence - Revision petition filed against dismissal ... ... ... Issues: Whether the petitioner demonstrated the requisite due diligence for producing additional evidence under Order 41, ... 41, Rule 27, and the intention of the provision is not to allow filling of gaps in evidence. ... In the present case however, a perusal ....
(A) Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 - Order 41, Rule 27 and Order 11, Rule 12 CPC - Writ ... Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC reads as infra: "27. ... preferred by the petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 (1) and Order 11, Rule 12....
CIVIL PROCEDURE - EVIDENCE IN APPEAL - ORDER 41 RULE 27, ORDER 11 RULE 12, SECTION 151 CPC - The court discussed ... the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC, which govern the production of additional evidence in appellate ... 41 Rule 27 and Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC. ... Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC reads as in....
Additional Evidence - Civil Procedure Code - Order 41 Rule 27 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order 41 Rule ... 27 C.P.C - The judgment discusses the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C, which allows for the production of additional evidence ... It found that the appellants failed to establish the conditions necessary for the allowance of additional evidence under Order#HL_END....
Additional Evidence - Tenancy Dispute - UP Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 21(1)(a), Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - ... Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC ... Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for adducing additional ... Order #HL_ST....
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – Order 41 Rule 27 – Appeal - Suit for recovery - Production ... It would be apposite to quote Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which reads as under:- 27. ... Any such attempt is contrary to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Additional evidence c....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Application for additional evidence - Appellant sought to introduce Joint ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the discretion to admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 is not a matter ... The conditions under which this discretion may be exercised are outlined in Order 41 Rule 27#H....
However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. ... However, by the said finding this Court is not disapproving the order passed by the learned appellate court in entirety, rather, the learned Court has passed a justified order taking the petition filed under Order XLI Rule#HL....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 43 Rule 1(u), Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A, 25, and 27 - Remand of case - Appellate Court erred ... 41 Rule 27 CPC. ... I.L.R. [2020] M.P. 163, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that provision of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not authorize any lacuna or gaps in evidence to be filled up at the....
(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 41, Rule 6 - Application to expunge scandalous, irrelevant, and oppressive statements from affidavit ... Whether The Requirements Of Order 41, Rule 6 RC 2012 Have Been Fulfilled [20] D1 contended that the relevant impugned statements or portion of encl. 19 has been specified. ... MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd & Ors (encls 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27#....
As seen from Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, due diligence is required for the purpose of entertaining an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. In the instant case, even without a pleading in the written statement filed in the suit O.S. No.2351 of 2005, in the appellate proceedings, the petitioners have filed the application under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission of the appellate Court to receive certain documents which in the considered view of this Court are irrelevant for....
Rule 27(1)(b) of Order 41 clearly envisages that 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. From the facts disclosed by the appellants, it is evident that the appellants could not after her husband and father becomes traceless contest the case....
After decree was passed, the appellants came to know and filed appeal, therefore, I find that the appellants have been able to bring their case within the purview of Rule 27(1)(b) of Order 41 and the learned District Judge, Aurangabad has rightly allowed the petition of the appellants for bringing additional evidence. Rule 27(1)(b) of Order 41 clearly envisages that party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evid....
The tenets of Order 41 Rule 27 are relevance, due diligence, enable it to pronounce judgment or any substantial cause. None of these considerations relevant for considering the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC have been adverted to by the learned FAC below. The relevant consideration for allowing such application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is to see whether additional evidence is relevant and has a material bearing on the issues involved before the Court and seco....
27. Order 41, Rule 27 (1)(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates a situation where 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.
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
