http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1814 of 2004

PETITIONER: Jayaramdas & Sons

RESPONDENT: Mirza Rafaullah Baig & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/03/2004

BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24319 of 2003)

R.C. Lahoti, J.

       Leave granted.

       A suit for issuance of permanent preventive injunction was filed  by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-appellants.  The suit  was decreed by the trial court.  The decree has been maintained by  the First Appellate Court as also by the High Court.  Feeling aggrieved,  the defendant-appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.   

       The only submission made by Shri V.R. Reddy, the learned  senior counsel for the appellants, is that the First Appellate Court has  committed a grave error of law in rejecting the application filed by the  appellants under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,  1908.  It is submitted that if only the application would have been  allowed, the additional evidence sought to be brought on record by the  appellants would have made a material difference in the findings  arrived at by the First Appellate Court and the rejection of the  application has occasioned a failure of justice.

       Before the First Appellate Court, the appellants sought to tender  in evidence three documents which are certified copies of public  records.  The application was rejected by the Appellate Court forming  an opinion that the application was a bald application not setting out  any facts relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Court  by reference to any of the clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of  Rule 27 of Order XLI.  The prayer was reiterated by the appellants in  the High Court but it met with the same fate and for the same  reasons.

       Shri V.R. Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the appellants,  has pressed for the admission of the same documents in additional  evidence and for the consequent remand to the First Appellate Court.   The prayer has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondents  by their learned counsel, led by Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate.  At  one stage it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the  exercise sought to be indulged into by the appellants, would be one in  futility inasmuch as the documents which the appellants are proposing  to tender in evidence are already available on record.  In view of this  submission, an adjournment was sought for on behalf of the  appellants.  It appears that during the pendency of this special leave  petition and between the two dates of hearing, the appellants moved  the First Appellate Court seeking return of the documents which were  filed by them in the First Appellate Court as accompanying the  application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC.  The First Appellate Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

returned the documents on 10.02.2004 and thereafter these  documents have been brought to the notice of this Court by placing  the same at the hearing.  Shri Reddy, the learned senior counsel, has  been at pains to demonstrate that the documents already available on  record appear to be the similar certified copies but a minute  comparative study of the documents reveals that the contents of the  documents which the appellants were seeking to be brought on record  were at variance with the documents available on record and,  therefore, the admission of these documents in additional evidence  was all the more necessary inasmuch as the Court shall have to hold  which of the two documents carried reliability and that would obviously  have a material bearing on the findings of fact to be arrived at.

       Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel for the respondents,  has vehemently urged that Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC was an  exception to the ordinary rule of admitting evidence in civil cases.   Inasmuch as the exercise of discretion under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the  CPC in favour of the party seeking such exercise, has the result of  almost re-opening the trial which has otherwise stood concluded, care  and caution is needed for exercise of such discretion and the power  cannot be exercised just for asking.  It was obligatory on the part of  the appellants to have set out in the application such necessary facts  as would lay foundation for the applicability of one of the grounds  contemplated by the provision, failing which no fault can be found with  the discretion exercised by the First Appellate Court and upheld by the  High Court, submitted Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel for  the respondents.

       On 19.03.2004, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for  the appellants, produced for the perusal of the Court two out of three  documents which were sought to be tendered in evidence before the  First Appellate Court and the return whereof was secured by the  appellants on 10.02.2004.  Shri Reddy submitted that the appellants  are limiting their prayer to the admission of these two documents in  evidence and would not press for the third one.  The two documents  have been placed in a closed cover after perusal by the Court.

       It is true that additional evidence, whether oral or documentary,  is not to be admitted in Appellate Court unless a case for admission  thereof is made out by reference to clause (a) or (aa) of sub-rule (1)  of Rule 27 or unless the Appellate Court requires such evidence to  enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause  within the meaning of clause (b).  A perusal of the documents, brought  to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellants and their  comparison with the documents already available on record, clearly  goes to show that the two are at variance and the effect of such  variance determined either way would have a material bearing on the  crucial issue arising for decision between the parties.   

As already pointed out both the sets of documents are certified  copies of public documents.  The appellants would not ordinarily  suspect or doubt the documents where the certified copies of public  documents were secured from the public officer having the custody of  such public documents.  It is only when it came to their knowledge  that the certified copies were at variance with the originals or were not  complete copies that they thought of securing another set of certified  copies and then seeking leave of the Court for producing the certified  copies obtained by them as an additional evidence in Appellate Court.   The case of the appellants for production of additional evidence falls  within clause (aa) of sub-rule (1), abovesaid.  It would have been  better if such ground was set out specifically in the application so that  the opposite party could have had an opportunity of meeting the plea  and the First Appellate Court could also have had the provisions of  clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) in its mind for dealing with the appellants’  application.  However, still we feel that the ends of justice demand the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

additional evidence being allowed to be produced de hors the  deficiency in the application filed by the appellants.         The appeal is allowed.  The Judgment and decrees passed by  the High Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside.  The two  documents, filed by the appellants in this Court, shall be forwarded by  the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to the First Appellate Court in a  sealed cover.  The documents shall be admitted in evidence by the  First Appellate Court, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- by way of costs  by the appellants.  The First Appellate Court shall, after permitting the  production of such two documents by way of additional evidence,  proceed to hear and decide the appeal afresh and in accordance with  law.         Before parting we make it clear that we have neither touched  upon nor expressed any opinion on the merits of  the case.  Only  production of additional evidence has been permitted.  The First  Appellate Court shall be free to form its own opinion afresh on all the  questions of facts and law arising for decision in the appeal.

       The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to  appear before the First Appellate Court on 19.04.2004.