What is the legal consequence of an Appellate Court dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending Order XLI Rule 27 application for additional evidence?

It is a jurisdictional error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that failing to pass a reasoned order either allowing or rejecting such an application before disposing of the appeal vitiates the judgment.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 27 — Additional evidence — Appellate Court's duty — Jurisdictional error — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 27 — Duty to decide on merits — Held: An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an application for additional evidence on its merits, considering it simultaneously with the main appeal to determine whether the documents are required to pronounce judgment. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to a final decision. (¶12) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 27 — Undecided application is a jurisdictional error — Held further: Dismissing an appeal or cross-objections without deciding a pending application for additional evidence, and without a reasoned order, is a jurisdictional error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Impugned Judgment is set aside, the Civil Appeals allowed, and the matter restored and remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal. (¶13, 14)

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

Read the full text of CHOWDAPPA v. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND OTHERS — 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