Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court
Pleadings Must Be Examined Before Considering Whether Party Is Entitled To Lead Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27(1) Of CPC: Supreme Court
|The appellants, unsuccessful plaintiffs, had approached the Supreme Court challenging the reversal of the decree for specific performance of an agreement.
The Supreme Court has held that before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, the Appellate Court must examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record.
The appellants, unsuccessful plaintiffs, had approached the Apex Court challenging the reversal of the decree for specific performance of an agreement
The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. In the absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration.”
Senior Advocate Raghavendra Srivatsa represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
In the year 1995, the respondent-defendant entered into an agreement to sell his house property for a consideration of ₹10,67,000. An amount of Rs 5 lakh was paid. The agreement was to be completed within a period of one and a half years. As per the said agreement, if the defendant was not in a position to deliver vacant possession, the consideration payable was ₹8,67,000. In the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that they had disposed of other immovable properties for purchasing the suit property, which they intended to use for their occupation. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, and the balance consideration was available with them. The defendant denied the case set up by the plaintiffs.
The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had proved that an agreement to sell and decreed the suit for specific performance. The defendant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. During pendency of the appeal, an application under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code was filed by the defendant to produce additional documentary evidence in support of the appeal. The High Court reversed the decree for specific performance and directed the defendant to return the amount of ₹1,00,000 borrowed by him from the plaintiff. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench found that, as per the averments of the plaint and the response of the defendant to the said averment,while the plaintiffs asserted that they had sold the immovable properties located at Benson Town for arranging the funds to undertake the transaction, the defendant stated that he was unaware of this factual aspect. It was further noticed that the High Court had proceeded to consider the application under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code without examining as to whether the additional evidence sought to be led was supported by the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement.
The Bench also added, “Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has been made out that such permission can be granted. In absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the defendant for leading additional evidence.”
The Bench was thus of the view that the application for leading additional evidence had been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led was in consonance with the pleadings of the defendant and whether such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the additional evidence taken on record had weighed with it while reversing the decree.
The Bench allowed the appeal and ordered, “The appeal requires to be re-considered along with the application filed by the defendant under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code afresh.”
Cause Title: Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by Lrs. v. Abdul Shukoor (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1027)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Raghavendra Srivatsa, Advocates N K Verma, Bhavana Duhoon, AOR Anjana Chandrashekar
Respondent: Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, Advocates Mohd. Usman Siddiqui, Aisha Siddiqui, B. S. Randhawa, Sakeena Quidwai, Mohd. Salman Siddiqui, Neeleshwar Pavani, Shaurya Mishra, Prabisha Pradeep, AOR Farman