Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 515 views

    Order 41 Rule 27

    Uploaded by

    साकेत मिश्रा
    The document discusses the rules around introducing new evidence during the rejoinder stage of an appeal case. It provides the following key points: (1) Order 41 Rule 27 states that parties cannot introduce new evidence during the appellate stage except under specific circumstances outlined in clauses (a), (aa), and (b). (2) Case law has established that Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be used to remedy gaps in evidence if the court can still pass judgement without the new evidence. (3) Additional evidence can only be introduced if the appellate court requires it to pass judgement or for substantial cause. Parties do not have an automatic right to introduce new evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Order 41 Rule 27

    Uploaded by

    साकेत मिश्रा
    515 views3 pages
    The document discusses the rules around introducing new evidence during the rejoinder stage of an appeal case. It provides the following key points: (1) Order 41 Rule 27 states that parties cannot introduce new evidence during the appellate stage except under specific circumstances outlined in clauses (a), (aa), and (b). (2) Case law has established that Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be used to remedy gaps in evidence if the court can still pass judgement without the new evidence. (3) Additional evidence can only be introduced if the appellate court requires it to pass judgement or for substantial cause. Parties do not have an automatic right to introduce new evidence.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the rules around introducing new evidence during the rejoinder stage of an appeal case. It provides the following key points: (1) Order 41 Rule 27 states that parties cannot introduce new evidence during the appellate stage except under specific circumstances outlined in clauses (a), (aa), and (b). (2) Case law has established that Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be used to remedy gaps in evidence if the court can still pass judgement without the new evidence. (3) Additional evidence can only be introduced if the appellate court requires it to pass judgement or for substantial cause. Parties do not have an automatic right to introduce new evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    515 views3 pages

    Order 41 Rule 27

    Uploaded by

    साकेत मिश्रा
    The document discusses the rules around introducing new evidence during the rejoinder stage of an appeal case. It provides the following key points: (1) Order 41 Rule 27 states that parties cannot introduce new evidence during the appellate stage except under specific circumstances outlined in clauses (a), (aa), and (b). (2) Case law has established that Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be used to remedy gaps in evidence if the court can still pass judgement without the new evidence. (3) Additional evidence can only be introduced if the appellate court requires it to pass judgement or for substantial cause. Parties do not have an automatic right to introduce new evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Can a party place new documents on record during its rejoinder stage?

    ORDER 41 RULE 27 - Production of Additional Evidence.

    The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, oral or
    documentary, before the appellate court except on the ground enumerated in Clause (a), (aa)
    and (b) of Order 41 Rule 37(1)

    (a) The court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which
    ought to have been admitted.

    (aa) the party seeking to produce 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

    (b) the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined
    to enable it to produce judgement or for any substantial cause, the appellate court may allow
    such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

    Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay v. Lal Pancham of Bombay 1965 (1) SCR
    542.

    - Power under Order 41 Rule 27 could not be used for removing a lacuna in the
    evidence and did not entitle the appellate stage when even without such evidence it
    could pronounce judgement in the case.

    State of Gujarat v. Mahendra Kumar Purushottambhai Desai, 2006 (9) SCC 772 (PARA
    10 PAGE 775)

    - “Though the appellate court has the power to allow a document to be produced or a
    witness to be examined under Order 41 Rule 27, the requirement of the said court
    must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for
    enabling it to pronounce judgement. The provision did not entitle the appellate court
    to let in fresh evidence at the appellant stage where eve without such evidence it can
    pronounce judgement in the case…”

    Smt. Pramod Kumari Bhatia v. Om Prakash Bhatia, 1980 1 SCC 412, Karnataka Board
    of Wakf v. Government of India, 2004 10 SCC 779
    - The principle for acceptance or refusal of additional evidence at the appellate stage
    observing that the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is very clear to the effect that
    the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether
    oral or documentary, unless they have shown that in spite of due diligence, they could
    not produce such documents and that such documents are required to enable the court
    to pronounce a proper judgement.

    MAHAVEER SINGH V. NARESH CHANDRA, 2001 SC AIR 134 (PARA 5, PAGE


    313)

    - Principle to be observed ordinarily is that the appellate court should not travel outside
    the record of the lower court and cannot take evidence on appeal. However, Section
    107(d) CPC is an exception to the general rule, and additional evidence can be taken
    only when the conditions and limitations laid down in the said rule are found to exist.
    The court is not bound under the circumstances mentioned under the rule to permit
    additional evidence and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of
    such evidence and the matter is entirely in the discretion of the court, which is, of
    course, to be exercised judiciously and sparingly.

    *ORDER 11 RULE 14.

    BAGAI CONSTRUCTION v. GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE, 2013 14 SCC


    1

    Application by respondent under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC. It was
    dismissed by Additional District Judge, Delhi.

    Supreme Court (PARA 15, PAGE 7)

    - it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by


    arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This court has repeatedly held
    that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not
    followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the code would get defeated. In
    fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could
    be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those
    applications are to be considered.

    You might also like