JAYARAMDAS AND SONS versus MIRZA RAFATULLAH BAIG AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JAY A RAMDAS AND SONS 
v. 
MIRZA RAFATULLAH BAIG AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XL!, Rule 27, sub-rule (I), Clause 
(aa): 
Suit for issuance of permanent preventive injunction-Dismissed by trial 
Court-Affirmed by First Appellate Court rejecting the application for adducing 
additional documents in evidence-Appeal dismissed by High Court-
Correctness of-Held: Contents of the documents sought to be added varies 
with the contents of the copies of the documents on record-It would have 
D material bearing on the issue to be determined-Hence, provisions under 
Clause (aa) of sub-rule (l) of Rule 27 attracted-Though such ground should 
have been set out in the petition/application itself to afford an opportunity to 
opposite party-However, the ends of justice demand that the additional 
evidence allowed to be produced de hors deficiency in the application-The 
documents admilled in evidence-Appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh 
E in accordance with law-Directions issued. 
Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for issuance of permanent preventive 
injunction against the respondent-defendant. Trial Court dismissed the 
suit. Pending appeal before the first Appellate Court, appellant filed an 
F application under Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC, to bring additional evidence 
on record. Both the application and the appeal were rejected by the 
Appellate Court. High Court rejected the appeal. Hence the present 
appeal. During pendency of the appeal before this court, appellants 
obtained the documents in question from the First Appellate Court and 
thereafter placed it before this Court for consideration. 
G 
It was contended by the appellants that the additional documents 
which were not allowed by the Courts 'Jclow may be admitted as an 
additional evidence; that the case may be remanded to the First Appellate 
Court; and that the contents of the documents available on record and 
the contents of the documents sought to be produced on record were at 
H 
488 
" . 
•
·~ r 
.IA YA RAMDAS & SONS v. RAIG 
489 
variance and thus have material bearing on the finding of facts to be A 
arrived at. 
Respondents submitted that the documents were already available 
on record; and that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have 
set out such grounds in the application itself to lay foundation for 
applicability of Rule 27 Order XLI CPC. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. It is true that additional evidence, whether oral or 
documentary, is not to be admitted by Appellate Court unless a case for 
admission thereof is made out by reference to clause (a) or (aa) of sub- C 
rule (1) of Rule 27 or unless the Appellate Court requires such evidence 
to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause 
within the meaning of clause (b) of the Rule. A perusal of the documents 
and their comparison with the documents already available on record 
clearly goes to show that the two are at variance and the effect of such D 
variance determined either way would have a material bearing on the 
crucial issue arising for decision between the parties. 1492-C-Dl 
1.2. It is only when it came to their knowledge that the certified 
copies obtained from the public officer, having custody of the documents, 
were not complete copies that they thought of securing another set of E 
certified copies and then seeking leave of the Court, for producing them 
as an additional evidence in Appellate Court. The case of the appellants 
for production of additional evidence falls within clause (aa) of sub-rule 
(1) of Rule 27. It would have been better if such ground was set out 
specifically in the application so that the opposite party could have had 
an opportunity of meeting the plea and the First Appellate Court could F 
also have had the provisions of law in its mind for dealing with the 
appellants' application. However, the ends o( justice demand the 
additional evidence being allowed to be produced de hors the deficiency 
in the application filed by the appellants. 1492-B, FI 
1.3. The documents shall be admitted in evidence by the First 
Appellate Court, subject to payment of Rs. 5000 by way of costs by the 
appellants. [492-H; 493-AJ 
The Court should proceed to hear and decide the appeal afresh and 
G 
in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has neither touched H 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A upon nor expresse

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.