Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court ruled that additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC if it is inconsistent with the pleadings. The Court emphasized that appellate courts must first examine the pleadings before allowing such evidence, as evidence unrelated to the pleadings serves no purpose, rendering them inadmissible.

“In our opinion, 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 that is proposed to be brought on record. In absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration.”, the court said.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar heard the dispute stemmed from a 1995 agreement to sell a house in Bangalore. The Appellant-plaintiffs claimed that they paid substantial advances and even sold other properties to arrange funds before filing a suit for specific performance.

The Respondent-defendant denied the agreement, alleging it was merely security for a ₹1,00,000 loan. Importantly, in his written statement, he stated he had “no knowledge” of the plaintiffs' claim about selling other properties.

The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs in 2000. However, in appeal, the defendant sought to introduce additional public documents house tax records, encumbrance certificates, and others arguing they disproved the plaintiffs' claim of property sales. The High Court admitted this evidence, reversed the decree, and dismissed the suit, without examining the pleadings of the Respondent.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar observed that the High Court erred in allowing the Respondent to produce the additional evidence which was never pleaded in the pleadings.

In his written statement, the defendant had only claimed “no knowledge” of property sales made by the Appellant. At the appellate stage, however, he tried to prove affirmatively that no sales took place, raising a new defence which was not raised during the trial, the court said.

“Considering the averments in paragraph 9 of the plaint and the response of the defendant to the said averments in paragraph 11 of the written statement, it is clear that while the plaintiffs asserted that they had sold the immovable properties located at Benson Town for arranging the funds to undertake the transaction, the defendant stated that he was unaware of this factual aspect.”, the court said.

“In the application preferred under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, the defendant stated that he got the information that there was no such sale by the plaintiffs in the last week of June, 2000. After making inquiries in the office of the Sub-Registrar, he got such information and obtained certified copies of extracts of said documents. It can be seen that the High Court has proceeded to consider the application under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code without examining as to whether the additional evidence sought to be led was supported by the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement.”, the court added.

Further, the Court observed:

“Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has been made out that such permission can be granted. In absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the defendant for leading additional evidence.”, the court

Accordingly, the Court ordered remanding the case back to the High Court for reconsideration, to decide the application seeking production of additional evidence afresh.

“As we have found that the application for leading additional evidence has been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led was in consonance with the pleadings of the defendant and whether such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the additional evidence taken on record has weighed with it while reversing the decree, the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court. Since we find that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the High Court afresh, we have not gone into the aspect of delay in deciding the appeal by the High Court as was urged on behalf of the appellants.”, the court ordered.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. VERSUS ABDUL SHUKOOR

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghavendra Sri Atsa, Sr. Adv. Mr. N.K. Verma, Adv. Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. B.S. Randawa, Adv. Ms. Sakeen Quidwai, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Salman Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Aman Anand, Adv. Ms. Prabisha Pradeep, Adv. Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Ms. Shaurya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Md. Farman, AOR