Mere Fact That Certain Evidence Is Important Is Not Sufficient Ground For Admitting That Evidence In Appeal: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court reiterated that, mere fact that certain evidence is important is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in Appeal.
The Court reiterated thus in a Petition seeking to quash and set aside the Order of the Additional District Judge by which the Application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking permission to produce additional documents was rejected.
A Single Bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi enunciated, "Insofar as the expression "or for any other substantial cause" is concerned, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (supra) has held that the inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal."
The Bench said that Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances and it may also be true that the Appellate Court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence.
Advocate A.B. Munshi appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Advocates Satyam Chhaya and Parv C. Mehta appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The Petitioners were the original Defendants and the Respondents were the original Plaintiffs. A Special Civil Suit was filed before the Principal Civil Judge against the Petitioners to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of a Plot. A notice was issued upon the Defendants. The Additional Senior Civil Judge allowed the Suit and directed the Defendants to handover the possession of the property within 60 days and also cancelled the Sale Deed.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioners approached the District Court, Ahmedabad by filing Regular Civil Appeal. Meanwhile, they submitted an Application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, seeking permission to produce additional documents. The District Judge partly allowed the said Application. Hence, the case was before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “… the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal, which is stated in the provision.”
The Court noted that where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the Suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such Application may be allowed.
“Considering the law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the ingredients of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, as indicated in the above mentioned decision, have not been satisfied by the petitioners in the application impugned filed before the learned Appellate Court. On the contrary, there is no proper assertion made by the petitioners in the application, on the basis of which, the Appellate Court can jump to a conclusion that such documents are necessary for proper adjudication and for pronouncement of the judgment”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Petition.
Cause Title- Javedbhai @ Javedkhan Babubhai Saiyad & Ors. v. Sikandarali Kasamali Kureshi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:GUJHC:60783)
