LexNORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION, GORAKHPUR versus BHAGWAN DAS (D) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 6 S.C.R. 416 NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION, GORAKHPUR v. BHAGWAN DAS (D) BY LRS. (Civil Appeal No. 2785 of 2008) APRIL 11, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 107, 0. 6 r. 17 and 0. c 41 r. 27 -Amendment of pleadings and production of additional document - At the stage of second appeal - Permissibility - Held : Amendment of pleadings is permissible at appellate stage - It can be denied if it causes the other party an injury which could not be compensated in costs - The general rule D is that additional evidence is not admissible at appellate stage - However s. 107 provides exception to the general rule, whereby appellate court is enabled to admit additional evidence subject to the conditions and limitations provided under 0. 41 r. 27 - On the facts of the case, High Court was required to consider the applications for amendment and for E production of additional evidence - Matter remitted to High Court. Respondent filed a suit against the appellant, seeking to restrain them from interfering with his possession of F the suit land. Appellant contended that the land had been transferred to them, after acquisition thereof. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff-respondent was the 'Bhumidhar' and in possession of the land and the possession of the defendant-appellant was not proved. Decree was confirmed by first appellate court. In second G appeal, the appellant took the plea that the respondent had obtained the decree by concealing material facts. According to the official records the predecessors of the respondent were not but 'Bhumidar' thereof, and the State Government was the co-owner of the land; that the land H 416 NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMN., GORAKHPUR v. 417 BHAGWAN DAS (D) BY LRS. had been transferred to the appellant by the predecessor A of the respondent, and compensation in lieu thereof had been paid to him; that respondent's predecessor had also moved an application for deletion of his name from revenue records; and that Bhumidari Sanad had been obtained by the respondent's predecessor fraudulently. B Appellant moved application under 0. 41 r. 27 C.P.C. for -~ production of additional evidence. They also filed application under 0. 6 r. 17 seeking amendment of Written Statement. High Court dismissed the application under 0.6 r. 17 holding that such application was not c entertainable in second appeal. Appeal was also dismissed holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. An application for review was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 Though the general rule is that ordinarily the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and additional evidence, whether oral D or documentary, is not admitted, but Section 107 C.P.C., which carves out an exception to the general rule, E enables an appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. These conditions are prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. [Para 12] [423-8, CJ F 1.2 Under clause (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 27 Order 41 C.P.C., evidence may be admitted by an appellate authority if it 'requires' to enable it to pronounce judgment 'or for any other substantial cause'. The question whether G looking into the documents, sought to be filed as additional evidence, would be necessary to pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner, has to be considered by the court at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. [Paras 13 and 14] [423-G; 424-A, G; 425-A] H 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A K. Venkataramaiah v. A. Seetharamareddy and Ors. 1963 (2) SCR 53- followed. Parsotim Thakur and Ors. v. Lal Mohar Thakur and Ors. AIR 1931 PC 143 - relied on. B 1.3 Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining c the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be 0 compensated in cost
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.