The Bombay High Court dismissed a Chamber Summons filed under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of the CPC by the Appellants seeking to produce additional evidence (Joint Development Agreement) in a specific performance suit. The Court highlighted that additional evidence is discretionary and allowed only under exceptional circumstances.

The application for additional evidence lacked merit, was deemed an afterthought, and primarily aimed at delaying execution of the decree. The Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakhs for abuse of the judicial process.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
   • Order 41 Rule 27 (Production of additional evidence in appellate court)
   • Order 13 Rule 1 (Production of documentary evidence)
2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
   • Section 55 (Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller)
3. Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCA):
   • Repeal provisions and their implications.

Background of the Case (Paras 1-2)

The dispute arises from a specific performance suit where Bastion Constructions sought the transfer of property under an agreement with the F.E. Dinshaw Trust, represented by the Appellants. The trial court decreed in favor of the Respondents.

Chamber Summons Application (Paras 3-4)

The Appellants sought to introduce a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa). They argued that the JDA, which was not produced earlier despite due diligence, negated the Respondents' possession claims.

Respondents' Argument (Paras 5-6)

The Respondents contended that:

• The JDA was irrelevant to the decree for specific performance.
• Possession issues were ancillary and immaterial to the main relief.
• The application lacked bona fides and aimed to delay proceedings.

Court’s Analysis (Paras 7-11)

The Court analyzed:

• Order 41 Rule 27’s discretionary nature.
• The irrelevance of possession in specific performance cases under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.
• The lack of due diligence and intent behind the application.

Conclusion and Costs (Paras 12-14)

The Court dismissed the Chamber Summons, citing it as an abuse of process. It imposed costs of ₹5 lakhs on the Appellants to deter frivolous litigation and listed the Appeal for final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Discretion under Order 41 Rule 27:

   • The Court retains discretion to allow additional evidence only if it satisfies the specific conditions laid down in sub-clauses (a), (aa), or (b).
   • The decision to admit evidence is based on relevance, diligence, and necessity.

2. Specific Performance and Possession:

   • Possession is ancillary to the relief of specific performance, and its determination is not central to the grant of the decree.

3. Prevention of Abuse:

   • Applications aimed solely at delaying proceedings or frustrating decree execution constitute abuse of process and attract penalties.

Subjects:

• Additional Evidence in Appeal
• Judicial Discretion and Abuse of Process

• Specific Performance
• Additional Evidence
• Judicial Discretion
• Abuse of Process
• Civil Procedure