Home / Current Affairs
Civil Law
Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC
« »25-Aug-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
Recently, the bench Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar ruled that additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) if inconsistent with pleadings, setting aside Karnataka High Court order that admitted such evidence without examining pleadings.
- The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By LRS. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor (2025).
What was the Background of Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By LRS. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor (2025) Case?
- In February 1995, the respondent-defendant entered into an agreement to sell his house property in Bangalore to the appellant-plaintiffs for ₹10,67,000. The plaintiffs paid ₹5,00,000 in two instalments as advance, with the agreement stipulating completion within one and a half years.
- A crucial aspect of the plaintiffs' case was their assertion that they had disposed of their valuable immovable properties at Benson Town to arrange funds for purchasing the suit property, which they required for their bona fide occupation.
- When the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite legal notices in April and July 1996, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance. The defendant denied the agreement's existence, contending that he had merely borrowed ₹1,00,000 from the plaintiffs for business expansion and that his signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. Significantly, in paragraph 11 of his written statement, the defendant stated that it was "not within his knowledge" whether the plaintiffs had sold their Benson Town properties.
- The Trial Court, after examining evidence from both parties, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs in February 2000, finding that the agreement was proved and the plaintiffs had demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that both the appeal and the application for additional evidence be reconsidered in accordance with established legal principles.
- The Court clarified that appellate courts must mandatorily examine pleadings before allowing additional evidence, ensuring procedural fairness and legal consistency.
- The Supreme Court, through Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, identified a critical procedural issue: whether appellate courts must examine pleadings before allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- During the appeal, the defendant sought to introduce additional documentary evidence including property records, claiming he discovered that the plaintiffs had never actually sold their Benson Town properties.
- The High Court allowed this evidence and reversed the Trial Court's decree based substantially on these new documents.
- The Supreme Court observed a fundamental flaw in the High Court's approach. The defendant had originally pleaded only "no knowledge" regarding the property sales but was now attempting to affirmatively prove that no sales had occurred. This constituted raising a new defence at the appellate stage, unsupported by his original pleadings.
- The Court established a crucial legal principle: "before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence."
- The Supreme Court ruled that permitting additional evidence without proper pleading support would render the exercise meaningless, as such evidence cannot be legally considered if it contradicts or goes beyond the party's pleaded case.
What is Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC?
- General Prohibition:
- The parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court as a matter of right.
- Exceptional Circumstances for Admission:
- Additional evidence may be allowed by the Appellate Court under the following specific circumstances:
- Clause (a): Where the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted during the trial proceedings.
- Clause (aa): 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.
- Clause (b): Where 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.
- Additional evidence may be allowed by the Appellate Court under the following specific circumstances:
- Discretionary Power:
- The provision vests discretionary power in the Appellate Court to allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined, upon being satisfied that any of the prescribed conditions under clauses (a), (aa), or (b) are fulfilled.
- Mandatory Recording Requirement:
- Sub-rule (2) mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission, ensuring judicial accountability and transparency in the exercise of this discretionary power.
- Legislative Intent:
- The provision strikes a balance between finality of trial court proceedings and the appellate court's duty to ensure justice, whilst preventing parties from withholding evidence during trial to present it strategically during appeal.
- The rule ensures that appellate proceedings do not become a substitute for proper trial conduct and that parties exercise due diligence in presenting their case at the appropriate stage.
- Procedural Safeguard:
- The requirement of establishing due diligence under clause (aa) prevents abuse of the provision and ensures that only genuinely unavailable evidence is permitted at the appellate stage.
- The "substantial cause" criterion under clause (b) provides flexibility to appellate courts to admit evidence necessary for the proper adjudication of disputes whilst maintaining judicial discretion within defined parameters.