AKBAR QUADRI Vs. K SINGARAJU
LAWS(APH)-1992-10-28
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 19,1992

AKBAR QUADRI Appellant
VERSUS
K.SINGARAJU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ANISETTI BHAGYAVATHI VS. A. SATYANARAYANA [FOLLOWED ON]
K VENKATARAMIAH VS. A SEETHARAMA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
C SUSHEELA VS. C PATWARI [REFERRED TO]
SANGAWWA VS. SHANKARAPPA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This can application filed by the petitioner/appellant under Order 41,Rule 27 CPC for receiving three documents by way of additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant relied upon a single Judge decision of Karnataka High Court in Sangaurwa vs. Shankarappa and argued that provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC are applicable to Second Appeal and that additional evidence by way of documents can be allowed to be produced in second appeal. But a Division Bench of our High Court has taken a contrary view in Anisetti Bhagyavathi vs. A. Satyanarayana holding that an application to receive additional evidence cannot be permitted at the stage of Second Appeal. The reasoning given by the Division Bench is that the High Court while hearing the Second Appeal cannot go into the questions of fact and the question of admitting additional evidence in the Second Appeal does not arise. I am bound by the Division Bench decision of our High Court and hence hold that the application for receiving additional evidence in a Second Appeal is not maintainable.
(2.)The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K, Venkatramaiah vs. Seetharama Reddy and argued that the appellate court has power to allow additional evidence for any other substantial cause. But the casebefore the Supreme Court isa civil appeal arising against the decision of High Court acting as an Election Tribunal. Therefore, the Supreme Court was exercising the powers of an appellate court, but, not the powers under Section 100 CPC in a Second Appeal.
(3.)Another Division Bench of our High Court held in Smt. C. Susheela vs. Smt. C. Patwari that receiving of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of course, that Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is couched in negative terms and that the Rule is that additional evidence should not be admitted except when it comes under any of the clauses of the said Rule. Order 41, Rule 27 empowers a parry to admit additional evidence if the lower court has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the party seeking to adduce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witnesses to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.