LexSURJIT SINGH & ORS. versus GURWANT KAUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 355 SURJIT SINGH & ORS. V. GURWANT KAUR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8283 of 2014) AUGUST 27, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.XU r.27 - Suit for specific performance - Necessary documents not filed by plaintiff inspite reminders - Application by plaintiff for filing C additional documents rejected by trial court which is upheld by High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction - After dismissal of suit, in appeal by plaintiff, application filed ul . Or.XU r.27 for production of pass books and statement of bank accounts as additional evidence - Application allowed D by trial court and said decision upheld by the High Court - Challenged - Held: lnspite of numerous opportunities granted to file the documents, the plaintiffs chos(3 not to avail of the same, and, therefore, the said documents• were not accepted by trial court - Civil revision was filed and dealt with on merits E - Same set of documents were sought to be introduced before the appellate court as the additional evidence - The documents sought to be filed before tbe appellate court as additional evidence were bank accounts which really were not clinching to put the controversy - Or.XU r.27(1)(b) is not F attracted - Therefore, the appellate court has erred in taking recourse to the said clause and allowing the application for taking additional evidence. Allowing the appeal, the court HELD: 1. It is the duty of the court to come to a definite conclusion that it is really necessary to accept the documents as additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment. The true test is where the 355 G H 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A appellate court was able to pronounce the judgment from the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. In the case at hand, numerous opportunities were granted to file the documents, but the plaintiffs chose not to avail of the B same. Therefore, the said documents were not accepted by the trial court. A civil revision was filed and dealt with on merits. Same set of documents were sought to be introduced before the appellate court as the. additional evidence. The said documents clinching and really c · essential for pronouncement of the judgment or for that matter any other substantial cause. There may be cases where on acceptance of public documents the decision on the lis in question would subserve cause of justice and avoid miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the 0 documents sought to be filed before the appellate court as additional evidence were bank accounts which really were not clinching to put the controversy. It is extremely difficult to put the case under Order XLI Rule 27 (1)(b) to suggest that it is necessary to take the documents on E record in the interest of justice and, additionally, when the said documents were rejected to be taken on record by the trial court and the said rejection had been affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the appellate court has erred in taking recourse to the said clause and allowing the application for taking additional evidence and similarly F the High Court has committed illegality opining that the order passed by the lower appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 18, 19] [369-F-H; 370-B-G] Parsotim v. Lal Mohan AIR 1931 PC 143; Arjan Singh G v. Kartar Singh and Ors. AIR 1951 SC 193 - relied on. Arjun Singh v. Mahindra Kumar and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 993: 1964 SCR 946; Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kera/a and Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359: 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR H 538; Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya SURJIT SINGH v. GURWANT KAUR 357 Bapet (1969) 2 sec 74: 1970 (1) scR 322; I(. A Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1526: 1964 SCR 35; Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy end Ors. AIR 1979 SC 553; Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors. (1994) 4 s.cc 659: 1994 (1) SCR 429; Wadi v. Ami/al and Ors. JT 2002 (6) SC B 16 -:- Distinguished. Satyadhan Ghosa/ and Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 941: 1960 SCR 590; Moheshur Singh v. Bengal Government 7Moo Ind. App 283 at p. 302 (PC); Forbes v. Ameeroonissa Begum 10 Moo Ind. App 340 (PC); C Sheonath v. Ramnath 10 Moo Ind App 431 (PC); The United Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Allahabad v. Their Workmen (1972) 2 SCC 54
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.