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.

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.