SATISH CHAND SURANA versus RAJ KUMAR MESHRAM

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 06-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 586
586
SATISH CHAND SURANA
v.
RAJ KUMAR MESHRAM
(Civil Appeal No. 7446 of 2021)
DECEMBER 06, 2021
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.27 and s.107 –
Dismissal of main appeal by First Appellate Court without deciding
application for additional evidence – Held: Not proper – Ordinarily,
the Appellate Court should not travel beyond the record of the lower
court – s.107 CPC carves out an exception to this general rule,
enabling the Appellate Court to take additional evidence subject to
conditions prescribed in Or.XLI, r.27 CPC – Thus, grant or refusal
of opportunity for production of additional evidence at the appellate
stage is within the discretion of the appellate court – The First
Appellate court, being the last court of facts and evidence, should
permit the production of additional evidence where the explanation
furnished by the party is satisfactory and the documents in question
are vital to establish the case.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7446
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2019 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in FA No.433 of 2018.
Ashutosh Ghade, Ms. Manju Jetley, Advs. for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Leave granted.
(2) The appellant herein was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.30A/
2017 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Balode, and the
respondent was the defendant. The parties are referred to by their
respective ranking before the Trial Court.
(3) The plaintiff filed the said suit for specific performance of the
Agreement dated 26.08.2015 said to have been executed by the defendant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
in favour of the plaintiff for sale of property No.395 and 396/1 having
area 0.59 hectare and 0.05 hectare respectively, totally measuring 0.64
Hectare situated at Village Jagtara, Patwari Halka No.22, Balode. The
suit was proceeded ex-parte. On appreciation of the materials placed
on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
(4) The plaintiff filed an appeal, F.A. No.433 of 2018 before the
High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the aforesaid judgment. During
the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff filed an application under Order
41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) for
production of additional evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal
by the impugned judgment, without considering the said application. The
plaintiff has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment of
the High Court in this appeal.
(5) Though notice was served on the respondent/defendant but
no one has entered appearance on his behalf.
(6) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
materials placed on record.
(7) Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the
High Court has dismissed the first appeal of the plaintiff without deciding
the application filed by him under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, seeking
permission to adduce the additional evidence. Learned Counsel further
submits that the appellant has a good case on merits.
(8) It is well-settled that, ordinarily, the Appellate Court should not
travel beyond the record of the lower court. Section 107 of the CPC
carves out an exception to this general rule, enabling the Appellate Court
to take additional evidence subject to the conditions prescribed in Order
41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Thus, grant or refusal of the opportunity for
production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is within the
discretion of the appellate court. Dismissal of the main appeal without
deciding the application for additional evidence would result in miscarriage
of justice. The First Appellate court, being the last court of facts and
evidence, should permit the production of additional evidence where the
explanation furnished by the party is satisfactory and the documents in
question are vital to establish the case.
(9) It is also necessary to observe here that the application for
permission to file additional evidence should contain the list of documents
giving full particulars thereof and copies sought to be filed as additional
SATISH CHAND SURANA v. RAJ KUMAR MESHRAM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
evidence should be served on the other side. However, the High Court
cannot completely ignore the application filed by the appellant and
pronounce the judgment. If the appellant makes out a case for al

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