2000 (11) TMI 1238 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal concerns the High Court's order in a revision petition filed u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allowing respondents to adduce additional evidence u/r 27 of Order XLI, CPC. The main issues are the admissibility of additional evidence and the High Court's interference in the original jurisdiction.

Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
The respondents, plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance, sought to adduce additional evidence regarding an agreement for sale. The High Court allowed this based on the unavailability of forensic facilities during trial, citing Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC. The Court emphasized that additional evidence can be permitted only under specific circumstances as outlined in the rule.

Scope of Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC:
The Court clarified that the appellate court's power to admit additional evidence is limited and should be exercised judiciously. The rule allows for additional evidence in cases where it was wrongly refused, not within the party's knowledge, or for substantial cause. The ability to pronounce a judgment satisfactorily is crucial for admitting additional evidence.

High Court's Interference:
The High Court's interference with the first appellate court's decision on additional evidence was deemed inappropriate. The Court highlighted that the High Court should not have intervened unless the appellate court required additional evidence to pronounce judgment. The decision in Gurdev Singh vs. Mehnga Ram was cited to emphasize the limited scope of interference u/s 115 CPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring that of the first appellate court. The correctness of the first appellate court's decision can be challenged in the pending appeal before the High Court. No costs were awarded in this matter.