Do parties to an appeal have a right to have additional evidence admitted under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

No. The Rule is couched in negative terms; the parties are not entitled as of right to the admission of such evidence, and there is no vested or automatic right to seek it. The matter is entirely within the judicial discretion of the court, circumscribed by the limitations in the Rule itself and to be used sparingly. The provision has no application where the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment on the evidence already on record.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27 — Or.XLI r.27(2) — Additional evidence in appeal — Due diligence — Suit for declaration of title — Ex parte decree against a non-party — Revenue entries — Adverse possession — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27 — No vested right to additional evidence — Held: Rule 27 is couched in negative terms and permits additional evidence in only three eventualities. Parties have no vested or automatic right to its admission, and it has no application where the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment on the record already before it. (¶11) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27(2) — Reasons for admission — Held further: Where additional evidence is admitted the appellate court must record its reasons, a salutary requirement which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation. (¶11) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XLI r.27 — Filling gaps in one's own case — Held further: Additional evidence is meant only to remove a lacuna in the evidence, not to cure the inherent defects in a party's case; a document unsupported by any foundational pleading cannot be introduced at the appellate stage. (¶11) Declaration of title — Decree obtained without impleading the true owner — Held further: A decree passed behind the back of the lawful owner is non-est against him, and no legal sanctity attaches to revenue entries made on its strength. The onus then lies on the plaintiff to establish title independently. Appeals dismissed. (¶10, 11)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of GOBIND SINGH AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India