K. VENKATARAMIAH versus A. SEETHARAMA REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 12-02-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
-
' . 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPRE:rillE COURT REPORTS 
K. VENKATARAMIAH 
v. 
A. SEETHARAMA REDDY & ORS. 
(P. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HrnAYATULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
35 
Election Petition-Age of Candidate on date of nomination 
or election-Admission of additional evidence in High Court-
When can be allowed-Additional evidence taken with consent of 
parties-Effect-Constitution of India, Art. 173 (b)-Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), O. 41, R. 27. 
The appellant challenged the validity of election of 
respondent on the grounds that he was below 30 years on the 
relevant date, that his election was vitiated by undue influence 
exercised on the voters by S'Jtll.(' Ministers of the State, that the 
secrecy of ballot was not maintained and that the election wa!! 
void on account of improper deletion of names of voters from 
the final list. 
All the objections were rejected by the Election · 
Tribunal which dismissed the election petition. On appeal, 
the High Court confirmed the findings of the Election Tribunal 
and dismissed the appeal. The appellant came to this Court 
by special Ir.ave. 
The appellant challenged the decision of the High Court 
mainly on the ground that in 
reaching its conclusion on the 
question of age of the respondent on 
the date of election, the 
High Court took into 
consideration evidence w'
1iich ivas not 
legally available for comideration and that the additional 
evidence was admitted v1ithout complying with the provision~ 
of law. 
Held, that the High Court allowed additional evidence 
to be admitted as it required that evidence either to enable it 
to pronounce judg1nent or for any 
other substantial cause 
within the meaningofR. 
27 (1) (b)ofO, 41 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure. It could not be said that the High Court 
made the order for admission of additional evidence without 
applying its mind. 
The appellate court has power to allow additional evi-
dence not only if it requires such evideRoe "to em1ble it to 
19~3. 
F1bruary, 12, 
1'63 
K. V cdatarantiah 
•• 
A. Sulh.,..,.a R1ddJ 
• 
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964]VOL. 
pronounce 
judgment" but also for "any other substantial 
cause." There may be cases where even though the court finds 
that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record 
as it is and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional 
evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment," it still consi· 
ders that in the interest of justice something which remains 
obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judg· 
mcnt in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one 
for allowing additional evidence "for any other substantial 
cause." 
Held, also, that the omission of the High Court to record 
the reasons for allowing additional evidence does not vitiate 
such admission. The provision is not mandatory although 
where a furth"r appeal lies from the decision of the appellate 
Court, the recordin~ of the reasons may be necessary and 
useful to the Court of further appeal for deciding whether the 
discretion had heen judicially exercised by the Court below or 
not and the omission to record the reas0ns must be treated as 
a serious defect. 
When additional evidence was taken with the a'5ent of 
both sides or without objection at the time it was taken, it is 
not open to a party to complain of it later on. As the appe· 
Ii ant did not press his application against the admission of 
additional evidence, the objection must be over-ruled. 
Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh. [1951] S. C. R. 258, 
Sre~manchuruier v. Gopalchunder, (Hl66) 11 M. I. A. 28, 
Manmohan Da.• v. Musammat Ramdei (1931) 35 C. W. N. 925 
Gopal, Singhv. 
Jltakri Rai, (1885) I. L. R. 12Cal. 37, 
Parsotim v. 
Lal 
~!Jfohar, 
(1931) L. R. 58 I. A. 254 and 
Jagarnath Prasad v. Hanuinan Pers/ur,l, (1909) L. R. 36 I. 
A. 221, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDWTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 676 of 1962 • 
Appeal by spccia I leave from the judgment and 
decree dated September 5, 1961, of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Special Appeal 
No. 3 of 1961. 
K. Bhimsu,nlcarcwi, 
A. Ranyu,nad/w,m Clietty, 
A. Vadavalli, N. Udayaratlmam and A. V. Rangam, 
{or the appellant. 
• 
-
• 
.~ 
.. 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
37 
A. V. Viswana.tha Sastri and T. Thiagarajan, 
for respondent No. 1. 
K. R. Ch1mdhri, V. 0. Prashar and Amarsingh 
Chaturvedi for respondent No. 2. 
1963. 
February 12. The judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
/ 
DAS GuPT

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