Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Application Seeking To Adduce Additional Evidence Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because There Was No Prayer For Same: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that it is not permissible to reject an application seeking to adduce additional evidence if there was no prayer for the same under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court allowed a Revision Appeal seeking relief of permanent injunction over the Suit Property. The Court emphasized that the First Appellate Court should not be too technical and should not reject the applications only on the ground that there is no prayer to adduce additional evidence while considering whether the documents are relevant to consider the case.
“Hence, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court requires to be set aside and direction has to be given to the First Appellate Court to decide whether grounds are made out to allow the applications filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. and the First Appellate Court should not be too technical and reject the applications only on the ground that there is no prayer to adduce additional evidence and consider whether those documents are relevant to consider the case”, Justice H.P. Sandesh observed.
Advocate Akash V.T. appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Shankarlingappa Nagaraj appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant approached the Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction contending that the property was purchased in the year 1956 by the husband of the plaintiff and property was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not established his possession and dismissed the suit.
The Court observed that the property was sold in favor of the Vendor of the Plaintiff and the Appellant also did not dispute the fact that earlier there was a sale deed in favor of the Father of the Defendant. The Court noted that the Appellate Court while considering the Application without formulating the point of whether those documents are necessary or not, concluded that no prayer is made in those applications seeking leave to adduce additional evidence. Therefore, the Court held that the question of considering the applications does not arise.
The Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in its decision and should have considered whether those documents were necessary to decide the issue involved between the parties and whether it helped to consider the germane issues involved between the plaintiff and the defendants.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court.
Cause Title: Smt. Veeramma v Sri Eshwaraiah (2023:KHC:36106)
