Under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in what circumstances may an appellate court permit additional evidence to be produced?

In only three eventualities: where the court which passed the decree refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted; where the party establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not have been produced when the decree under appeal was passed; and where the appellate court itself requires the document or witness to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.

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