Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 18 Rule 3 and Section 151—Additional Evidence—Rebuttal Evidence Without Prior Reservation Not Permissible—In a revision petition challenging the Trial Court’s rejection of an application to lead additional evidence via a handwriting expert for thumb impression verification on a disputed Will, the High Court upheld the impugned order—The Court held that the plaintiff, having closed evidence on 18.05.2015 without reserving the right to rebuttal under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, forfeited any such right thereafter—Citing binding precedents, including Surjit Singh v. Jagtar Singh, it emphasized that a plaintiff can only lead rebuttal evidence on issues the defendant bears the onus of proving—and only if the right is expressly reserved before defendant’s evidence b...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—This appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, the appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—The complainant alleged that a cheque for ₹30,00,000 issued by the accused in discharge of liability for a land transaction was dishonoured for insufficient funds—The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt—During appeal, the appellant filed additional documents, including the land sale agreement dated 20.05.2020 and a bank statement showing withdrawal of ₹25,00,000 in the name of the accused—The respondent opposed this as filling a lacuna, relying on H.N. ...

Additional evidence allowed. (A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 18, 19 and 22—Civil Procedure Code, Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151—Additional evidence in Domestic violence case—Trial court dismissed application—That order is impugned in Revision jurisdiction—The husband had not enclosed the relevant documents along with his counter and by virtue of the order of this Court, he is going to mark those documents now before the First Appellate Court—Similarly, the wife who had not enclosed these documents along with her complaint, is now attempting to mark these documents before the First Appellate Court—In view of Section 28 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, C.P.C is not applicable to the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151—Additional Evidence—Vague Pleadings and No Due Diligence—Petition for Additional Evidence Rejected—The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the order of the first appellate court rejecting the petitioners' application under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC for producing additional evidence in a pending title appeal—The petitioners, appellants in the first appeal, sought to introduce new evidence on the basis of alleged prejudice caused by multiple vakalatnamas filed by a co-respondent, and the claim that crucial facts regarding valuation and construction over the suit property were omitted in the original proceedings—The High Court held that the petitioners failed to satisfy any of the statutory conditions un...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27—The petition challenges the order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, allowing the respondents' application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to lead additional evidence—The petitioners argue that the evidence sought was within the respondents' knowledge and had previously been rejected in 2003—They rely on the judgment in "Rani Vs. Raksha Rani" to contend that additional evidence cannot be admitted to fill lacunas—The respondents counter that the application was filed following a remand order by the High Court, allowing the introduction of official documents for proper adjudication—The Court, citing Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and relevant precedents, including "Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jha...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41 Rule 7—Application for additional evidence—Appeal against a decree ordering the defendant to pay Rs. 13,76,000/- with interest, the High Court upheld the Additional Senior Civil Judge's decision and dismissed the defendant's application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908—The defendant claimed the lower court didn't hear his arguments and returned his applications related to the plaintiff’s income tax returns and reopening of evidence—The High Court rejected the application, citing its belated submission and failure to resubmit before judgment—The defendant, disputing promissory note execution, alleged signing under third-party influence—The plaintiff's evidence, supported by witnesses, was deemed...

Comparative analysis  Additional evidence — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 311, 391 — Comparative analysis — Both Section 311 and 391 relate to power of the court to take additional evidence; the former at the stage of trial and before the judgment is pronounced; and the latter at the appellate stage after judgment by the trial court has been pronounced — The discretion u/s. 391 should be read as somewhat more restricted in comparison to S. 311 as the appellate court is dealing with an appeal, after the trial court has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the person being prosecuted — Further, the appellate court can examine the evidence in depth and in detail, yet it does not possess all the powers of the trial court as it deals with cases wherein ...

Additional evidence—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order XLI, Rule 27—Application under—Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 seeking permission to produced additional evidence—Allowed by High Court—Remanded the matter to trial Court for fresh disposal—Judgment of High Court challenge by plaintiff before Supreme Court—Determination of—After carefully considering the evidence on record trial Court arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to get back possession of suit schedule property—From which he was dispossessed—Even after careful consideration of additional evidence recorded and transmitted to High Court by trial Court—High Court only confirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court—Supreme Court does not finds any reason to place sale deed executed in favour of d...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 34—Filing of additional evidence—Case involves a dispute over allowing additional evidence in an arbitration proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996—The appellant contests the High Court's decision to permit the respondents to adduce evidence, arguing that it goes against the Act's purpose of expeditious resolution—The appellant also asserts that the amendments to Section 34(2)(a) limit the need for evidence—The appellant's counsel references relevant legal precedents to support their position. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)— Section 107, Order 41 Rule 27 — CPC provides an exception to the general rule against introducing additional evidence at the appellate stage—It allows the Appellate Court to consider additional evidence, subject to the conditions outlined in Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Therefore—the decision to permit or deny the presentation of supplementary evidence during the appeal lies within the discretion of the appellate court. ...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Compensation Claim—Additional Evidence—Remand for Fresh Consideration—In a case involving an accident resulting in the death of the deceased, Mandar Deshpande, the claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act—The tribunal awarded ₹12,63,201/- in compensation—On appeal, the insurance company contested the nexus between the accidental injuries and the subsequent death, highlighting the absence of postmortem evidence and reliance on testimony by a homeopathy doctor (PW2) who lacked relevant medical expertise—The claimants filed an application seeking permission to submit additional evidence from the deceased’s treating doctor—The High Court, noting the significance of expert medical evidence for establishing causati...

Evidence Act, 1872—Section 8—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226— Additional evidence—appellant had initially filed an application outlining the grounds for disqualification. The Chairman's order was based on this application, along with the evidence and materials presented before them. The additional evidence that the appellant sought to introduce in the writ petition was not fundamental to the disqualification claim against the respondent. Therefore, there is no error in the High Court's decision to reject this application. While affirming the High Court's order, a few observations were made. The appeal was dismissed accordingly. ...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 401, 391—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138—Additional evidence—An application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C., was rejected by appellate court—Revision against—Held, Section 391 appears to be the empowerment of the appellate court to see that justice is done between the parties—But, it is also clear that such power must be exercised 'sparingly' and only in 'exceptional suitable cases where the court is satisfied that directing additional evidence would serve the interests of justice'. (Para 8)...

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Sections 482 and 39—Trust Deed—Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property—Quashing the FIRs - Additional evidence—When the Appellate Court has been given power to lead additional evidence, the observation that it is belated stage was uncalled for— Appellant was convicted on 07.10.2013 and appeal was immediately filed on the next date, i.e. 08.10.2013—It was not even mentioned by the High Court that there is anything on record to indicate that appeal was being heard and at this stage the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was filed, calling the application as filed at belated stage itself was unjustified. Further, the observation of the High Court that application was filed w...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Sections 391 and 482—Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—Sections 120-B, 419, 467, 406, 471, and 420—Appellate Court's refusal to accept additional evidence was criticized—ourt found the belated stage argument unjustified and noted a lack of evidence of ulterior motives—Court allowed the appeal, citing errors in not considering important documents and denying the appellant the chance to prove them—Appeal is allowed. ...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 340—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 27—Additional evidence—Arose from a judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Karnataka, which allowed the defendant to produce additional evidence and directed the trial court to re-decide the case—The Supreme Court found that the High Court had the authority to allow additional evidence, but it should have framed issues and directed the First Appellate Court to record and evaluate the evidence—The case was remanded to the High Court to follow this procedure and consider the substantial legal questions—No costs were awarded. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 27—Additional evidence—Appellants and respondents were involved in a land dispute in Chennai—The respondents filed civil suits, and the Trial Court dismissed them—In the first appeals, the respondents were allowed to present additional evidence, leading to the appeals' success—The Supreme Court found jurisdictional errors in the first Appellate Court's decision, remanding the case for retrial on merits—Parties can amend pleadings and present additional evidence—The Trial Court should decide the suits within a year, and the appeals were allowed. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—That the District Court's decision to grant this opportunity was justified, given the circumstances—High Court's judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court to record evidence and decide the suit within a specific time frame. No costs were awarded. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27—Trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the first appeal by Devasthan was also dismissed—However, the second appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the translated version of a Portuguese document submitted as evidence should have been filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure—Supreme Court disagreed, stating that no application was needed for the translated version, as the original document was already on record—Case was remitted to the first appellate court for reconsideration—No costs were awarded. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rules 23A and 27—Appeal involves a dispute over a property in a civil suit—Plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction against the defendants—Trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the plaintiff to submit additional evidence and remanded the case for fresh consideration—Defendants appealed to the High Court, which set aside the first appellate court's order and dismissed the suit—Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the case on merits and set aside the High Court's order, remanding the case for fresh consideration by the trial court, with instructions to decide the suit within six months. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 27 Rule 1 (aa)—Appellants sought permission from the High Court to introduce additional evidence, specifically a map indicating that the disputed land is a public road, as per Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa). Such evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage if it could not have been presented during the trial despite due diligence and if it was not within the appellant's knowledge. However, the Appellants, who are a public authority, sought to introduce a road map, which should have been known to them, casting doubt on the necessity of this evidence. Since the decree was issued after contested proceedings and no perversity in concurrent findings was demonstrated, the appeal was rightfully dismissed. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27—Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 12—Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—Section 420—Passage provides a summary of a legal case in which appeals were filed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In this case, the appellant sought the annulment of a marriage, claiming that it was a mock marriage performed to help the respondent avoid an arranged marriage. The trial court granted the annulment, but the respondent appealed and filed an application to adduce additional evidence. The High Court, instead of deciding the matter, remitted it back to the trial court, instructing the trial court to allow the respondent to present additional evidence and the appellant to rebut that evidence. The passage suggests that most of the documents sought to be presen...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 13 Rule 4, Order 41 Rule 27, Order 41 Rule 27(1)—A company with a longstanding trademark "Shalimar," filed a suit for permanent injunction against alleged trademark infringement—Despite producing photocopies of registration certificates, the trial court dismissed the suit citing lack of original documents—On appeal, the single judge accepted the originals but erred in not allowing rebuttal evidence—The division bench criticized the procedural lapses but also set aside the single judge's order without proper remand—The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, highlighting procedural mistakes at all stages and remanding the case for proper consideration, emphasizing fairness and justice—This decision underscores the importance of adherence to procedural ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27, Order 41 Rule 27(1)—Additional evidence—Power of the appellate court regarding the admission of additional evidence is circumscribed, limited to situations where it deems such evidence necessary for a satisfactory judgment—The term "ability to pronounce judgment" is interpreted as the court's competence to deliver a judgment that satisfies its own standards—The appellate court is cautioned against allowing supplementary evidence merely to remedy weaknesses in the unsuccessful party's case before the trial court—The principle underscores the appellate court's role in ensuring that the judicial process maintains integrity and avoids the potential misuse of additional evidence to address deficiencies in the original presentation&mdash...

Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879—Section 37(2)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27, Order 41 Rule 27(1)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—State of Gujarat appealed a High Court decision affirming the dismissal of its suit seeking ownership declaration over certain lands—The respondents claimed ownership based on historical records—The State, during the appeal, sought to introduce additional evidence, but the High Court rejected it—The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the State failed to present crucial evidence earlier—However, considering a notification, the Court partially allowed the State's claim for 2 vighas 5 vasas of acquired land—The rest of the High Court's decision was affirmed. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41, Rule 27(1)(a), (aa)—Sought permission to introduce additional evidence, specifically a set of certified copies that differed from those already on record—Generally, additional evidence is admissible in an Appellate Court only if justified under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(a) or (aa), or if required for the court to pronounce judgment or for other substantial causes under clause (b). A comparison of the two sets of certified copies revealed significant variances with potential implications for the case—Both sets of documents were certified copies of public documents, and the appellants, having no reason to doubt the authenticity of the initially secured copies, discovered the variances later—Despite deficiencies in the application, the court allowed the production of additio...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 313—High Court found that the demand for illegal gratification by the accused on an earlier day was fully proven, but the demand on the day of the seizure of tainted notes was not specifically put to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC—The High Court considered this as an irregularity, not fatal to the case, and rectified it by additional examination of the accused—Section 391 is viewed as an exception to the general rule that appeals must be decided based on the evidence before the trial court—The powers under this section are to be exercised cautiously, serving the ends of justice without annulling the doctrine of finality in judicial proceedings—In this context, Section 391 is considered akin to Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Proce...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27, Section 107—Appeal arises from a High Court order allowing additional evidence in a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC—The respondents sought to adduce forensic evidence regarding an alleged agreement—The trial court's refusal to permit additional evidence was overturned by the High Court—The Supreme Court emphasizes the limited scope of Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC for admitting additional evidence—It clarifies that such evidence can only be allowed under specific circumstances, such as a lacuna in existing evidence or for substantial cause, and not for seeking better scientific evidence—The Court finds the High Court's interference unjustified, as the appeal was not before it in its entirety—Accordingly, the Supreme Court set...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 27—Civil Procedure—Amendment of Memorandum of Appeal—Additional Evidence—Dismissal of application under Order 41, Rule 27—Consideration by High Court—Scope of court's discretion—Application dismissed without considering appeal on merits—Supreme Court sets aside order, restores application to file, directs fresh consideration—High Court directed to prioritize and dispose of appeal expeditiously within three months—Appeal allowed with no costs. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 151—Additional evidence—Grants special leave in a tenancy dispute where subsequent events were pleaded by the landlord to justify eviction—The appellant tenant contests the High Court's acceptance of the landlord's pleadings without formal proof—The Court acknowledges the distinction between pleading and proof but notes that in certain circumstances, such as appeals or revisions, the court may accept allegations as proved if unchallenged—However, it emphasizes the need for evidence if facts are disputed—The Court sets aside the High Court's orders and remits the case for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to examine both parties' subsequent events—The High Court is instructed to decide whether oral evidence or affidavits suf...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 391—The respondent was acquitted by the trial court of charges under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962, despite being found with a gold waist chain coated with mercury to appear as silver—The trial court relied on the defense witness, a licensed gold dealer, who testified that such chains are common in Rajasthan and can be made of pure or mixed gold—The trial court, supported by the High Court, concluded the chain was an ornament, not primary gold—The Supreme Court criticized this permissive approach towards economic offences, noting the unusual coating of gold with mercury indicated smuggling—The High Court erred in rejecting additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC to prove the gold's purity, a crucial element of the prosecution&#...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41, Rule 27: The application for additional evidence (documents) at the appellate stage was rejected, as the evidence was sought for the first time and lacked the necessary oral proof to substantiate it—The production of such documents was not permitted. Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 101 to 103: The burden of proof regarding caste status after conversion and re-conversion rests on the individual—Since the appellant’s conversion to Christianity in 1949 meant the cessation of his Adi Dravida caste membership (as Christianity does not recognize caste), it was incumbent upon him to prove his re-admittance to the caste upon re-conversion to Hinduism—The Court concluded that the appellant’s claim failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish his caste s...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 41 Rule 27—Validity of a specific performance decree and the lessor's consent requirement— The plaintiff sought to enforce an agreement for the assignment of a lease, which initially hinged on obtaining the lessor's consent— The agreement evolved through correspondence, culminating in a final offer not contingent on such consent but instead placing the burden on the defendant to secure it— The court determined that the lessor's refusal to consent was unreasonable, given the plaintiff's status as a respectable and responsible person, thus relieving the defendant from needing this consent for specific performance— The appeal, challenging the specific performance decree and procedural aspects including evidence admission and covenant interpretation, was di...