Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that appellate courts must first examine the pleadings of parties before permitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court was hearing an appeal in a dispute concerning a decree of specific performance, and it observed that allowing additional documents without testing their connection to pleadings is legally unsustainable.
Brief Facts:
The case arose out of an agreement to sell a house property. The plaintiffs claimed the defendant had entered into a valid sale agreement, accepted advance payments, but later failed to execute the sale deed. A suit for specific performance was filed, and the Trial Court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs after disbelieving the defendant’s version. On appeal, however, the High Court permitted the defendant to produce fresh documentary evidence and reversed the Trial Court’s decree, holding that the plaintiffs had not proved the agreement.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court had erred in setting aside a well-reasoned decree, despite the defendant admitting his signatures on the sale agreement. It was further submitted that the additional documents were accepted without granting the plaintiffs any opportunity to rebut them, and that the High Court’s prolonged delay in pronouncing judgment added to the prejudice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent supported the High Court’s decision, contending that the agreement was not a genuine sale transaction but merely a document executed as security for a loan. It was argued that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the High Court was competent to compare signatures and that the additional public documents obtained were rightly admitted as evidence.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court, after examining the record, underscored a critical procedural safeguard. It held, “Before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party. In absence of necessary pleadings, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise, and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequence".
The Court further relied on earlier precedents Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, to reiterate that appellate courts cannot bypass pleadings when exercising discretion under Order XLI Rule 27.
Since the High Court had admitted additional evidence without linking it to the pleadings of the defendant, the Apex Court held that the judgment reversing the Trial Court’s decree could not be sustained.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the appeal, the Top Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to re-examine the appeal along with the defendant’s application for additional evidence in accordance with law and to expedite the matter, noting that the litigation had already been pending since 1997.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute and left parties to bear their own costs.
Case Title: Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. vs. Abdul Shukoor
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.10458 of 2010
Coram: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Raghavendra Srivatsa (Sr. Adv.), N K Verma, Bhavana Duhoon, Anjana Chandrashekar (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mahalakshmi Pavani (Sr. Adv.), Mohd. Usman Siddiqui, Aisha Siddiqui, B. S. Randhawa, Sakeena Quidwai, Mohd. Salman Siddiqui, Neeleshwar Pavani, Shaurya Mishra, Prabisha Pradeep, Md. Farman (AOR)
Picture Source :
