Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was decreed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deodar on 27.01.2021. The State of Gujarat, being aggrieved, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2021 before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deodar. During the pendency of the appeal, the State filed an application at Exhibit 7 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The learned appellate judge allowed the application by order dated 02.03.2024. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Rana for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Shivam Parikh for the State. The petitioners contended that the application did not satisfy the test laid down under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and that the appellate court had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the fulfillment of the conditions. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the appellate court had merely observed that the documents sought to be produced were necessary for just decision of the case, but had not recorded any satisfaction that the conditions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC were met. The court held that the power to allow additional evidence in appeal is discretionary but must be exercised judicially and with reasons. Since the impugned order lacked such satisfaction, it was arbitrary and unsustainable. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 02.03.2024, and directed the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh without being influenced by the quashed order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - Conditions for Admission - The appellate court must record satisfaction that the conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are fulfilled before allowing additional evidence. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. The court held that the impugned order allowing additional evidence without recording such satisfaction was arbitrary and liable to be set aside. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in allowing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence without recording satisfaction of the conditions laid down therein.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.03.2024 passed below Exh.7 in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2021 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deodar is quashed and set aside. The appellate court is directed to decide the appeal afresh without being influenced by the quashed order.
Law Points
- Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
- additional evidence in appeal
- satisfaction of conditions
- recording of reasons
- judicial discretion
