LexIQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. versus ABDUL SHUKOOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1174 : 2025 INSC 1027 Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor (Civil Appeal No. 10458 of 2010) 22 August 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether it is necessary for the appellate court to consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence u/Ord. XLI r.27(1) CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27(1) – Production of additional evidence in appellate court – Consideration of the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence u/Ord. XLI r.27(1), by the appellate court – Requirement – Decree for specific performance of agreement granted by the trial court in favour of the appellant – Appeal by the respondent, and during pendency the respondent filed an application u/Ord. XLI r.27(1) seeking production of additional documentary evidence in support of the appeal – Appellate court reversed the decree after taking into consideration the additional evidence led by the respondent – Sustainability: Held: Judgment passed by the High Court unsustainable in law – High Court considered the application u/Ord. XLI r.27(1) for leading additional evidence without examining as to whether the additional evidence sought to be led was supported by the pleadings of the respondent in the written statement while reversing the decree – Before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence u/Ord. XLI r.27(1), 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 * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1175 Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor 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 – Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Ord. XLI r.27(1) 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 Ord. XLI r.27(1) has been made out that such permission can be granted – In absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High Court, it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the respondent for leading additional evidence – Thus, the matter requires re-consideration by the High Court afresh – Judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside – Proceedings remanded to the High Court. [Paras 7-10] Case Law Cited Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 298 : (2001) 7 SCC 318; Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, 2024 INSC 801 : [2024] 10 SCR 2227; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr. [2008] 14 SCR 621 : AIR 2009 SC 1103; Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. [2012] 8 SCR 35 : (2012) 8 SCC 148 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Appellate court; Pleadings; Leading additional evidence; Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court; Decree for specific performance of agreement; House tax demand register; Encumbrance certificate; Certified copy of the sale deed and City Survey Endorsement; Remand of the matter. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10458 of 2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA NO. 440 of 2000 1176 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Raghavendra Sri Atsa, Sr. Adv., N.K. Verma, Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar. Advs. for the Respondent: Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv., Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Ms. Aisha Siddiqui, B.S. Randawa, Ms. Sakeen Quidwai, Mohammad Salman Siddiqui, Aman Anand, Ms. Prabisha Pradeep, Neeleshwar Pavani, Ms. Shaurya Mishra, Md. Farman. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Atul S. Chandurkar, J. 1. The short issue involved in this Civil Appeal is whether it is necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.