Supreme Court Holds Appellate Bench Must Scrutinise Pleadings Before Allowing Additional Evidence

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal arising from a challenge to a High Court order which, after permitting additional evidence in appeal, had reversed a trial decree for specific performance. The narrow legal question was whether an Appellate Court was required to examine the pleadings of the party seeking permission to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before admitting such evidence.

The Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the limited issue of admissibility of additional evidence. The Court held that besides meeting the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27(1), the Appellate Court must first examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence to ensure the evidence is in consonance with the case set up in pleadings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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." The Court further noted that public documents, if material and in proper form, could be annexed under Section 74 of the Evidence Act but that did not relieve the Appellate Court of its duty to test conformity with pleadings.

Background

The suit for specific performance flowed from an agreement dated 20.02.1995 for sale of a house for ₹10,67,000; plaintiffs alleged payment of part consideration and readiness and willingness to perform, while the defendant asserted the document was executed by way of security for a ₹1,00,000 loan and denied certain signatures. The Trial Court accepted plaintiffs’ evidence, disbelieved the defendant and decreed specific performance. During the appeal, the defendant applied under Order XLI Rule 27(1) to place on record certified public documents — extracts of house tax demand register, encumbrance certificate, a sale deed (1948) and city survey endorsement — averring he only learned in June 2000 that plaintiffs had not sold other immovable properties as pleaded. The High Court allowed the application, examined the additional material and reversed the trial decree, holding the agreement was not proved and directing return of ₹1,00,000 to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had erred in admitting and acting upon the additional evidence without first scrutinising the defendant’s pleadings to see if the new material was supported by the case pleaded in the written statement. Relying on precedents including Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, the Court held that the Appellate Court must satisfy itself that the party’s pleadings made out the case that the proposed evidence sought to support before granting permission. Finding that the High Court had not undertaken that exercise and that the additional evidence materially influenced the reversal of the decree, the Court set aside the High Court judgment dated 30.12.2008 in RFA No.440 of 2000 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Supreme Court clarified that it had "not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter," asked the High Court to expedite reconsideration and directed that parties bear their own costs; pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.10458 OF 2010 (2025 INSC 1027) Case Title: Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Senior Advocate