In RSA No. 2426 of 2017-KAR HC- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC bars production of additional evidence before Appellate Court, unless specific grounds are made out as mentioned in Rule 27: Karnataka HC
Justice M G Uma [14-12-2022]

Read Order: SMT. THULASAMMA v. SRI. S. VENAPPA S/O. GOPANNA 

Mansimran Kaur

Bengaluru, December 16, 2022: The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that unless a specific ground is made out, the parties are not permitted to produce the additional documents before the Appellate Court, that too in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, which has very limited scope.

Justice MG Uma dismissed the present appeal preferred by the plaintiff by observing that it failed to find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 

The plaintiff was before this Court impugning the judgment and decree dated September 6, 2017  passed in R.A.No.46/2016 on the file of the  Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, whereby  the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated December 19, 2015  in O.S.No.459/2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, was set aside and also the suit was dismissed. 

Brief facts of the case were  that the plaintiff filed suit of 2013 for permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to the suit schedule property to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff. 

It was contended that the schedule property was granted in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated April 23, 1988 by the Government and since then, she was  in possession and enjoyment of the same, by paying the land revenue. Even though the defendants were  not having any right, title or interest over the schedule property, they were  trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule land by cutting the trees standing therein. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction.

The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule property.

Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, found that the suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed.

 Accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by allowing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff was before this Court. 

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, bars production of additional evidence before the Appellate Court, unless specific grounds are made out as set out in Rule 27. 

The parties are not permitted to adduce the additional evidence as a matter of right. Learned counsel for the appellant has no explanation whatsoever for non-production of the additional documents before the trial Court. Even in the affidavit accompanying the application, there is no explanation as to why the documents were not produced at the first instance. No grounds are made out to bring the application within the exception to Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the Court noted 

When the plaintiff approached the trial Court seeking the discretionary relief of permanent injunction, she was very well aware that the schedule property is to be identified with specific boundaries and sketch. However no effort is made for identification of the property. Even before this Court, no grounds were made out to permit production of additional evidence. Under such circumstances, hence the Court was of the opinion that the application was liable to be dismissed. 

When the suit property is not identifiable, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The First Appellate Court on proper appreciation of the materials on record rightly dismissed the appeal, the Court further remarked. 

Thus, the Court did not find any reason to interfere with the same and dismissed the appeal.