Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Vested Right To Produce Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 9) held that the parties do not possess any vested right to bring on record an additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC at the Appellate stage, as it is the discretion of the Appellate court to permit additional evidence upon fulfilment of certain conditions enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

“…the appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The case pertains to a title dispute over a piece of a land in Gwalior. The Appellants-plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the disputed land via adverse possession. However, the Respondent-Union of India claimed that the ownership of the land was transferred to them from State Government in 1953.

The trial court decreed the Appellant's declaration of title and injunction suit. A first appeal was filed by the Union before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellant sought to adduce additional evidence upon filing an application seeking production of an additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Without adjudicating Appellant's application seeking production of an additional evidence, the High Court decided the first appeal and reversed the trial court's findings.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of a review petition by the High Court, the plaintiff-appellant moved to the Supreme Court, contending that High Court's omission to expressly adjudicate its application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC resulted in a miscarriage of justice requiring Court's interference.

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that no error was committed by the High Court in omitting to decide the Appellant's application to produce an additional evidence, as it is not a vested right of the litigant to produce an additional evidence, and only upon fulfillment of certain conditions, the court may allow production of an additional evidence.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC contemplates only three eventualities in which additional evidence may be permitted:

“first, where the court which passed the decree has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted;

second, where the party seeking to adduce such evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not have been produced at the time when the decree under appeal was passed; and

third, where the appellate court itself requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined in order to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.”

Relying on Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Court said that “unless the requirements stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are strictly satisfied, a party cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. Such permission cannot be granted as a matter of course, nor can additional evidence be introduced at the whim or convenience of a litigating party.”

“In such a backdrop, when the appellant-plaintiffs themselves asserted title on the basis of long and continuous possession through their predecessors, the subsequent attempt to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage assumes little legal significance. Once the trial had concluded and the decree was under challenge in appeal, the appellants could not be permitted to fill the gaps in their case by seeking to adduce further material to fortify a claim that was fundamentally flawed.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 27 — Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court — Scope and Conditions Precedent — The Supreme Court reaffirmed that parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence as a matter of right - The provision is couched in negative terms and applies only in three specific contingencies: (a) refusal by the trial court to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted; (aa) the party establishing that despite due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the trial stage; or (b) the Appellate Court itself requiring the evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 27 — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Noted that power to allow additional evidence is discretionary and must be used sparingly to remove a lacuna in the evidence, not to allow a party to fill gaps in their case at their "leisure or sweet will." - If the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory and reasoned judgment based on the existing record, the provision has no application. [Para 11]

Property Law — Declaration of Title — Adverse Possession — A claim for perfection of title by adverse possession cannot be sustained against the State/Union regardless of the duration of possession if the claimant fails to prove the specific point of time and basis upon which their predecessors entered possession - a decree obtained in an earlier suit where the true owner (Union of India) was not impleaded is non-est and not binding upon the Union – Appeals dismissed. [Relied on Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148; State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya, (2014) 13 SCC 468; Paras 7- 11]

Cause Title: GOBIND SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Thakur, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. (NP) Mr. V Chitambresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, GA, Adv. Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Anil Hooda, Adv.