Case Note & Summary
This was an appeal by special leave against a judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirming an order of the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, which dismissed an election petition filed by the appellant, K. Venkataramiah. The appellant had contested the election to the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh from the Telangana Graduates Constituency and sought a declaration that the election of the respondent, A. Seetharama Reddy, along with two others, be declared void and that he be declared duly elected. By the time of the Supreme Court appeal, only the validity of Seetharama Reddy's election remained in issue. The election petition originally raised four objections before the Tribunal: that Seetharama Reddy was disqualified under Article 173(b) of the Constitution because he was below 30 years of age on the relevant date; that undue influence was exercised by some Ministers of the State of Andhra Pradesh; that the secrecy of the ballot was not maintained; and that the election was void due to improper deletion of voters' names from the final list. Considerable oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the age issue. The Tribunal rejected most of the documentary evidence including the birth register R-5 and R-6, the school certificate R-11 and admission application R-12, finding that the respondent did not study at that school. Instead, the Tribunal relied on documents connected with proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, namely Exhibits R-3, R-10 and R-13, which showed that the respondent was treated as a major by 1356 Fasli, and concluded that he was not less than 30 years of age on the date of election or nomination. The Tribunal dismissed all objections and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the Tribunal's findings on all points and dismissed the appeal. In the High Court, additional evidence Exhibits R-19 and R-20, which had not been tendered before the Tribunal, and Exhibits R-5 and R-6, which the Tribunal had rejected, were admitted and considered. The High Court relied on these along with the wakalatnama to conclude that the respondent was over 30 years of age. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court acted without jurisdiction or improperly in admitting additional evidence without complying with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that this error of law vitiated the decision on age. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 107 and Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, noting that the appellate court's discretion to admit additional evidence is judicial and circumscribed. It found that the case fell within the second class of cases where the appellate court requires additional evidence for any other substantial cause to pronounce judgment more satisfactorily. The Court held that the omission to record reasons for admitting additional evidence, though a serious defect, does not vitiate the admission because the provision is directory and not mandatory. Furthermore, since the appellant did not press his objection against admission and the evidence was taken without objection, he could not complain later. The Supreme Court also observed that findings of fact on age could not be reopened in special leave appeal absent an error of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision confirming the validity of Seetharama Reddy's election.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence in Appellate Court - Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellate court may allow additional evidence not only to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for any other substantial cause; the discretion is judicial and circumscribed by the rule - The High Court admitted additional documents to fill gaps and pronounce judgment more satisfactorily on the respondent's age, and the Supreme Court held this was a proper exercise of discretion under clause (b) of Rule 27 and not a case of lack of jurisdiction (Paras not mentioned). B) Civil Procedure - Recording of Reasons for Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The requirement to record reasons for admitting additional evidence is directory, not mandatory - The High Court omitted to record reasons, but the Supreme Court held that the omission did not vitiate the admission; however, it was a serious defect, and courts should record reasons, especially when a further appeal lies, to enable the appellate court to decide whether discretion was judicially exercised (Paras not mentioned). C) Civil Procedure - Waiver and Consent in Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - When additional evidence is taken with the assent of both sides or without objection at the time it is taken, a party cannot complain later - The appellant did not press his application against the admission of additional evidence, and the Supreme Court held the objection must be overruled, citing precedents including Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Sreemanchunder v. Gopalchunder (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court legally admitted additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly whether the omission to record reasons vitiated the admission; whether the High Court's finding on the respondent's age and qualification under Article 173(b) of the Constitution was vitiated by reliance on additional evidence and documents rejected by the Tribunal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's admission of additional evidence was within its jurisdiction and that the omission to record reasons did not vitiate the admission. The Court upheld the High Court's conclusion on the respondent's age and confirmed the dismissal of the election petition.
Law Points
- Appellate court can allow additional evidence not only to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for any other substantial cause under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- The discretion to admit additional evidence is judicial and not arbitrary
- Omission to record reasons for admitting additional evidence does not vitiate admission as the provision is directory not mandatory
- When additional evidence is taken with consent of both sides or without objection at the time it is taken
- a party cannot complain later
- Findings of fact by Election Tribunal and High Court on age qualification under Article 173(b) Constitution cannot be reopened in special leave appeal absent error of law
