LexUNION OF INDIA versus K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [20 I 6) 5 S.C.R. 622 UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 920 of2008) B · JUNE29,2016 (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: · s.96 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Title suit - Dismissed C by trial court - First appeal - Dismissed in limine by High Court - On appeal, held: Jurisdiction of first appellate court is very wide - It is duty of the first appellate court to appreciate the entire evidence - In the present case, dismissal of the first appeal in limine was not correct. D E F Or. 41, r.27 - Production of additional evidence in appellate court - Title suit dismissed - In first appeal, production of additional evidence - Denied on the ground that the cause for filing the additional documents was not sufficient and that the evidence was neither material nor relevant - Held: If party to appeal is able to satisfy that there was unsatisfiable reason for filing additional evidence at trial stage and the evidence was relevant and material for deciding the rights of the parties, the court should allow the party to file such additional evidence - In the present case, the application for filing additional evidence deserved to be allowed - Matter remitted to trial court permitting the plaintiff to produce additional evidence - Opportunity also granted to the defendants to file additional evidence in rebuttal. Remitting the matter to trial court, the Court HELD: G 1. The High Court should not have dismissed the appeal in H limine but in the first instance should have admitted the appeal and then decided finally after serving notice of the appeal on the respondents. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of CPC a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate 622 UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS. Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and oflaw in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court. [Paras 20, 22 JI 628-C-E I Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179: 2001 (1) SCR 948; Madhukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 756 : 2001 (3) SCR 138; HK.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243; Jagannath v. Arulappa & Am: (2005) 12 SCC 303; B. V Nagesh & Anr. v. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530 : 2010 (11) SCR 784; State Bank of India & Anr. v. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 12 sec 174 : 2011 (10) SCR 436 - relied on. Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph AIR 1969 Kerala 316 - approved. 2.1 The High Court committed another error when it rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This application should have been allowed for more than one reason. First, there was no one to oppose the application. Second, the appellant averred in the application as to why they could not file the additional evidence earlier in civil suit and why there was delay on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate stage, Third, the averments in the application were supported with an affidavit, which remained un-rebutted. Fourth, the application also contained necessary averment as to why the additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy involved in appeal. Fifth, the additional evidence being in the nature of public documents and pertained to suit land, the same shou!d have been taken on record and lastly, the appellant being the Union of India was entitled to legitimately claim more indulgence in such procedural matters due to their peculiar set up and way of working. [Paras 33, 34][632-B-E] 2.2 Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the party to file additional evidence at the first and second appellate stage. If the party to appeal is able to satisfy the appellate Court that there is 623 A B c D E F G H 624 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 5 S.C.R. justifiable reason for not filing such evidence at the trial stage and that the additional evidence is relevant and material for deciding the rights of the parties which are the subject matter of the /is, the Court should allow the party to file such additional evidence. Merely because the Court allowed one party to file ad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.