No Vested Right To Produce Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage Without Fulfilling Conditions Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, on March 9, held that litigants carry no automatic or vested right to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that such admission rests entirely within the appellate court's discretion, exercisable only upon satisfaction of the conditions expressly prescribed thereunder. The court so held while dismissing an appeal arising from a title dispute over land claimed by private individuals as ancestral property, which the Union of India maintained had lawfully vested in it since 1953.
The dispute concerned a parcel of land situated in Murar, Gwalior, which the plaintiffs claimed as their ancestral property, asserting continuous ownership and possession for over fifty years through their forefathers. They alleged that government officers forcibly entered the property with the intent to remove wire fencing, demolish two shops, and destroy standing crops.
The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property. They relied upon a decree passed in an earlier civil suit instituted by their predecessors against the State, as well as entries in revenue records reflecting mutation in their favour.
The Union of India contended that the suit land fell within Morar Cantonment and had vested in it pursuant to a government decision in 1953, further evidenced by a Gazette Notification issued in 1954. It maintained that the earlier decree was not binding upon it, as it had neither been impleaded nor heard in those proceedings.
During the appellate proceedings before the High Court, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to place on record certified copies of the General Land Register maintained by the defendants, asserting that these documents would demonstrate the suit property was recorded as private land.
The court observed that the High Court committed no error in omitting to decide the plaintiffs' application to produce additional evidence, as production of additional evidence is not a vested right of a litigant, and only upon fulfilment of certain conditions may a court allow such production.
The court stated that Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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."
The court further observed that "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."
Referring to Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, the court stated that "the appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence." It further observed that "the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly." The court also recorded that "it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence," and that the power does not entitle the appellate court to "let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way."
Drawing from the same decision, the court observed that the requirement of recording reasons when admitting additional evidence "operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation" and that "the omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect."
Relying on Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, the court stated 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."
The court also recorded its disapproval of the plaintiffs' conduct, noting that "the attempt to secure a decree behind the back of the true owner is a circumstance that cannot be lightly brushed aside," and that "the proximity of events, namely, the passing of an ex-parte decree followed by the expeditious mutation of revenue entries in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs, casts a shadow over the bona fides of the proceedings."
The court concluded by holding that "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 directed: "The judgments dated 12th August, 2009, in First Appeal No. 80 of 1996 and 15th March, 2011, in Review Petition No. 300 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior are hereby affirmed. Consequently, the present appeals stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Thakur, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondents: 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.
Case Title: Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 211
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 of 2011
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
