UTTARADI MUTT versus RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
UTTARADI MUTT
v.
RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
(Civil Appeal No. 9333  of  2018)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI,  A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.27 – Application
under, allowed – Propriety of – Suit for injunction filed by the
appellant-plaintiff against respondent-defendant – Suit dismissed
by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal wherein respondent filed
applications u/Or. XLI, r.27 to produce additional evidence – First
Appellate Court (FAC) dismissed the said applications, while allowed
the appeal filed by the appellant – In second appeal, High Court
inter alia allowed the applications filed by the respondent – Held: In
the present case, the High Court opined that the documents proposed
to be produced by the respondent were official records and public
documents which, if proved, could enable the Court to pronounce
the judgment and do complete justice to the parties – Said view of
High Court is impregnable.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, rr.23, 23-A and
25-29 – Suit for injunction filed by the appellant against respondent
– Suit dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal wherein
respondent filed applications u/Or. XLI, r.27 to produce additional
evidence – First Appellate Court (FAC) allowed the appeal filed by
the appellant – In second appeal filed by the respondent, High Court
inter alia relegated the parties before the trial court for re-deciding
the suit – Propriety of – Held: While exercising discretion u/Or. XLI,
r.23-A for remanding the cases, the Appellate Court is duty bound
to keep in mind Or.XLI , rr.25 and 26 – There are two options
available to the Appellate Court – First, it may record the evidence
itself by permitting the parties to produce evidence before it as per
Or. XLI,r. 27 or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal under
consideration has arisen, to do so – In the present case, the High
Court did not record any special reasons for relegating the parties
before the “trial court” to re-decide the suit – Only reason, which
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 208
208
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
weighed with the High Court was that it was necessary to find out
the truth, as it is the duty of the Court – That could be done even by
directing the FAC to record evidence, which it was competent to do
while hearing the first appeal – For that, as per Or. XLI, r.25, the
High Court could have framed the issues and referred them for
adjudication before the FAC, against whose decree the second
appeal was preferred before the High Court – Considering the
chequered history of the present litigation, the fact that the suit was
filed in the year 1992, High Court directed to frame the points on
which additional evidence could be adduced by the respondent and
call upon the FAC to record additional evidence – Impugned
judgment of the High Court set aside to the extent it relegated the
parties before the trial court.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.27 – Application
under, to produce additional evidence, allowed – Implication of –
Suit for injunction filed by the appellant against respondent – Suit
dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal wherein
respondent filed applications u/Or. XLI, r.27 to produce additional
evidence, dismissed – High Court inter alia allowed the applications
filed by the respondent – Plea of appellant inter alia that even if
there was sufficient ground for allowing the applications filed by
the respondent for production of additional evidence, the
genuineness and the contents of the additional documents would
have to be proved by the party placing reliance – Held: High Court
made it clear that the fact that the applications are allowed per se is
not to give any direction to straightaway exhibit the additional
documents, but that it could be exhibited subject to proof –
Documents will have to be proved in accordance with law.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  In the present case, the High Court opined
that the documents proposed to be produced by the respondent
were official records and public documents which, if proved, could
enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment and do
full, complete and effectual justice to the parties. In other words,
the proposed additional evidence was required by the Court to
answer the subject matter and in particular, to pronounce the
judgment on material issues. On analysing the reasons record

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