MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 09-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 162 
MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 309 of 2003) 
NOVEMBER 9, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0.41, r.27 - Production 
of additional evidence in appellate court -
Held: It is 
C incumbent on the part of the appellate court to consider the 
relevance of the additional documents/evidence with regard 
to the issues involved -
Situations in which additional 
evidence can be adduced - Discussed - Additional evidence 
cannot, however, be adduced to fill in the lacunae or to patch 
D up the weak points in the case. 
Practice and Procedure: Remand of case for decision -
Order of remand with specific directions -
Scope for 
adjudication on remand - Kera/a Private Forests (Vesting 
E and Assignment) Act, 1971. 
On the enactment of the Kerala Private Forests 
(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, all private forests 
vested in the State of Kerala. The appellant-private 
company owned 5 estates in the State of Kerala. An area 
F of 5131 hectares of land in possession of appellant's 
estate was, therefore, deemed to have vested in the 
State. 
The appellant filed applications before the Forest 
G Tribunal seeking exclusion of 2588 hectares of its estate 
from the purview of the Act on the ground that the said 
area of land was either planted with eucalyptus prior to 
the vesting or were utilized for the purpose of fuel 
requirement for its factory and for the use of its 
H 
162 
MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD. v. STATE OF 
163 
KERALA AND ANR. 
employees. The Tribunal allowed the applications. On 
A 
appeals, the High Court held that the lands occupied by 
the staff quarters, clubs etc. were to be excluded under 
the Act. The matter came up before the Supreme Court. 
By order dated 24.8.1992, the Supreme Court set aside 
the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to 
B 
the Tribunal with a direction to determine and exempt the 
extent of land required by the appellant for the purpose 
of growing trees for firewood purposes for its factory as 
well as for the employees working in the estates. 
The Tribunal excluded 1400 hectares of land from the 
C 
vesting provisions of the Act as areas required for 
firewood purposes. The State appealed before the High 
Court. The appellant also filed cross-appeal. The High 
Court exempted 730.58 hectares of eucalyptus lands from 
vesting but held that no forest areas could be exempted 
D 
for the purpose of firewood in view of the decision of the 
Supreme Court in *Pul/engode Rubber Produce. 
In the instant appeals, it was contended by both the 
parties that the order of the High Court was not correct 
E 
and that separate applications were filed by them under 
Order 41 Rule 27, CPC for reception of material 
documents as additional evidence, however, the High 
Court while deciding the appeal failed to consider the 
same though adverted to them in the course of 
F 
discussion. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of the directions in the remand orde: 
dated 24.8.1992, the High Court was not justified in 
G 
relying on the decision in *Pullengode Rubber Produce. 
After the order of remand with a specific direction, the 
said decision had no application to the facts of the instant 
case·. [Para 6) [171-E-F] 
H 
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
*State of Kera/a and Another v. Pullengode Rubber 
Produce Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 92 - referred to. 
2.1. Order 41, CPC speaks about procedure in 
respect of disposal of appeals from original decree. If any 
8 
petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 in an appeal, it is 
incumbent on the part of the appellate court to consider 
the same at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so 
as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought 
to be adduced have any relevance/bearing in the issues 
C involved. Under Order 41, Rule 27, additional evidence 
could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, 
(a) whether the trial court has illegally refused the 
evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) 
whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party 
was not available to it despite the exercise of due 
D diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary 
in order to enable the appellate court to pronounce the 
judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature. 
It is equally well-settled that additional evidence cannot 
be permitted to be adduced so as to

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