Dismissing Appeal Without Deciding Additional Evidence Application Is Jurisdictional Error: Supreme Court Sheds Light On Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
The Supreme Court was considering a matter where the High Court failed to consider and dispose of an application filed for receiving additional evidence.
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice N.V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
While reiterating the principles relating to Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, the Supreme Court has affirmed the view that dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where the High Court failed to consider and dispose of an application filed for receiving additional evidence.
Referring to the judgments in Iqbal Ahmed (Dead)by LRs. and another v. Abdul Shukoor (2025) and G. Shashikala (dead) Thr. LRs v. G. Kalawati Bai (dead) Thr. LRs and others (2019), the Division Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria affirmed, “Before undertaking the exercise of evaluating the additional evidence, the Appellate Court must first examine the party's pleadings to ensure that the foundational case set up supports the introduction of the proposed evidence.”
“Dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice”, it added.
AOR Jayasree Narasimhan represented the Appellant while Advocate Prabha Swami represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
Two of the respondents had filed a suit before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, for partition and separate possession of Plaint Schedules. In the year 2006, the said Suit was decreed by the Trial Court, resulting in the Respondents filing a Regular First Appeal (RFA) in the Karnataka High Court. An objection was filed by the Appellant, and the Appellant was arrayed as a Defendant in the Original Suit. The RFA as well as the cross-objections were dismissed by the High Court, which led to the filing of the Civil Appeal at the instance of the third Respondent.
Reasoning
Explaining the law relating to Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, the Bench enumerated the following principles:
- An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final Judgment.
- The Application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main Appeal on its merits to determine whether the Court "requires" the documents to pronounce Judgment or for any other substantial cause.
- The Appellate Court must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application. If the production of documents is allowed, the Court is obligated to record its reasons for admission.
An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final Judgment.6 12.2 The Application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main Appeal on its merits to determine whether the Court "requires" the documents to pronounce Judgment or for any other substantial cause.
The Bench noted that the Karnataka High Court dismissed the cross-objection without referring to, considering, or adjudicating the Application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for the production of crucial documents, including the judgments, bank loan discharges, and surveyor sketches.
As per the Bench, the High Court committed a direct jurisdictional error by completely ignoring the Application while disposing of the Appeal. “The High Court had a duty to evaluate the Application at the final hearing to determine whether the documents were necessary to pronounce Judgment in a more satisfactory manner. The failure to pass a reasoned order either allowing or rejecting this Application before sustaining the Trial Court's decree resulted in a procedural failure and a miscarriage of justice”, it added.
Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment and allowing the Appeals, the Bench restored the Regular First Appeal together with cross objections.
Cause Title: Chowdappa v. Hanumantharayappa and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 816)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Jayasree Narasimhan, Advocates R.Sarbeshvaran, Siddheesh Yadav
Respondent: Advocates Prabha Swami, T.N Viswanath, TVN Arjun, Nikhil Swami, AOR Divya Swami