- (1.) The plaintiff/applicant instituted a suit for cancellation of sale-deeds dated 24 February 1975 and 16 May 1975. The respondent/defendants contested by filing written statement. The suit was rejected by the trial Court; aggrieved, applicant preferred an appeal and during pendency of the appeal an application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for admitting additional evidence. The lower Appellate Court rejected the application by order dated 13 May 2015. The order rejecting the application is being assailed under Article 227.
(2.) The application under Order 41 Rule 27 would state that while preparing the case during argument certain important and relevant documents which were necessary and available at the time of preparation is being sought to be brought on record. It was further alleged that the earlier counsel had not advised the applicant that the said documents are relevant for disposal of the suit proceedings. The appellate Court rejected the application for the reason that there was no explanation as to why, the documents that were being sought to be brought on record at this stage was not made available earlier, further, the applicant failed to establish that despite exercise of due diligence the evidence was not within his knowledge or could not have been produced by him at that time when the decree appealed against was passed.
(3.) The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and would not take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Court may permit additional evidence only if the conditions laid down in Rule 27 are found to exist. The parties, therefore, are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. The provision does not apply when on the basis of the evidence on record the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the Court and it must be used sparingly. The judicial discretion is circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself.;