Allahabad High Court
Abujar Lari vs Rampati And 8 Others on 1 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138652 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8236 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abujar Lari Respondent :- Rampati And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Pathak Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. I, District- Deoria in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2025 allowing the Application No. 29 C filed by appellant before the court below to take on record the documents annexed along with Paper No. 29-C in appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that plaintiff-respondents first set instituted original Suit No. 54 of 2024 for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondents of the property in dispute described in the plaint. Along with the suit, plaintiff-respondents also filed an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. being application No. 6C. The said application filed by the plaintiff-respondents was rejected by the trial court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 18, Deoria by order dated 18.01.2025. Being aggrieved, plaintiff-respondents filed Misc. appeal No. 9 of 2025 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. (Rampati and others Vs. Abujar Lari and others). During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff-respondents filed an application (paper No. 29 C) dated 27.03.2025 along with an affidavit before the lower appellate court in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 for filing additional evidence in the miscellaneous appeal. The petitioner who was the respondent in the appeal filed his detailed objections to the application Paper No. 29C filed by the plaintiff-respondents. The lower appellate court by judgment and order dated 15.07.2025 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. and permitted the documents annexed along with the application to be taken on record in miscellaneous appeal. Hence the present writ petition.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the lower appellate court is erroneous. The provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 will not apply in an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Order XLI applies only to the appeals filed against the decree and not in the appeals filed against the orders. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. contemplates three contingencies under which additional evidence can be admitted by the court of appeal and in present case, no such contingency as contemplated under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. exists and therefore, the lower appellate court has erred in law in allowing the application Paper No. 29C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in interlocutory proceedings for interim injunction, the trial court on the material placed before it must be in position to entertain a tentative opinion that the plaintiff has shown prima facie case on the date of the suit and that the appellate court in such cases should examine only two questions, one whether the opinion of the trial court is fairly possible on the material placed before it and two, whether on that finding the trial court may be said to have exercise its discretion properly in all the circumstances of a case in granting or refusing to grant injunction. There can be no question of additional evidence being adduced at the appellate stage.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in view of sub-Rule (2) of Order XLIII, the procedure prescribed under Order XLI shall apply to appeals from orders. It has been further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff-respondents that court below has rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondents for adducing additional evidence as the same was within the parameters prescribed by Rule 27 of Order XLI and no illegality has been committed in allowing the application.
5. Before considering the rival submissions it would be appropriate to look into the provisions as contained in the C.P.C. in this regard.
6. It is appropriate to reproduce Sections 107, 108, 2(16), (18) and Order XLIII Rule 1 (r), 2 of C.P.C. as under:-
"Section 107. Powers of appellate Court-(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an appellate Court shall have power-
(a) to determine a case finally;
(b) to remand a case;
(c) to frame issues and refer them for trial;
(d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein."
"Section108. Procedure in appeals from appellate decrees and orders .-The provisions of this Part relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals-
(a) from appellate decrees, and
(b) from orders made under this Code or under any special or local law in which a different procedure is not provided."
"Section 2(16) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules;"
"Section 2(18) "rules" means rules and forms contained in the First Schedule or made under section 122 or section 125;"
"Order 43 Rule 1(r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 [rule 2A], rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX;
"Order 43 Rule 2. Procedure. - The rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders."
7. Section 104 C.P.C. provides for filing appeal against the orders of the nature as mentioned under clauses (ff), (ffa), (g), (h), (i) as well as under Order XLIII Rule 1 Clause (a) to (w). An appeal against an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 is provided by clause (r) of Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C.
8. Section 107 C.P.C. provides that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an appellate court shall have power, (a) to determine a case finally; (b) to remand a case (c) to frame issues and refer them for trial; (d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. Further, subject to the above, the appellate court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted before those courts.
9. As such, Section 107(1) (d) C.P.C. specifically provides that the appellate court shall have power to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken. The power, is, however, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed.
10. Section 2(16) C.P.C., the definition clause, provides that in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context ''Prescribed' means, prescribed by rules, and ''Rules' have been defined under Clause (18) of Section 2, which means rules and forms contained in the first schedule or made under Section 122 or Section 125. The first schedule contains the orders and the rules thereunder. Order XLI C.P.C. lays down the procedure with respect to appeals from original decrees. Its Rule 27, provides for production of additional evidence in appellate court, and according to this rule, the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the appellate court; but if the condition as provided by Clause (a), (aa), (b), (c) of Sub rule (1) are satisfied the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. Where additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the appellate court shall have to record the reasons for its admission.
11. Section 108 C.P.C. provides for the procedure to be followed in appeals from appellate decrees or orders. As per this Section, the provisions of Part VII relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals (a) from appellate decrees; and (b) from order made under the Code or under any special or local law, in which, a different procedure is not provided. Section 107 C.P.C. which provides for the powers of the appellate court falls in part VII.
12. Order XLIII Rule 2 C.P.C. also provides that the rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders.
13. The Allahabad High Court amendment, inserts "and Order 41-A" in Rule 2 of Order 41 between the words "the rules of order 41" and "shall apply". Order 41-A, inserted by the High Court Amendment, applies to appeals from original decrees in the High Court. The same shall apply to Appeals from Orders filed in the High Court. The present case relates to the appeal before the appellate court, below, and not before the High Court, and as such, Order XLI A is not relevant for the present controversy.
14. From a conjoint and bare reading of Section 108 & Order XLIII Rule 2 C.P.C. it is clear that Order XLI shall apply to the appeals before the appellate court arising from orders under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. or from orders made under any special or local law in which a different procedure is not provided.
15. Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. provides for filing of additional evidence before the appellate court by the appellant. Rule 27 of Order XLI is quoted as under:
"27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.--(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if --
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or 1[(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 pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."
16. In the case of Sangram Singh versus Election Tribunal Kotah AIR 1955 SCC425, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that the Code of Procedure must be regarded as such. It is "procedure", something designed to facilitate justice and further its end. Not a penal indictment for punishment and penalties. Not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against, provided always that justice is done to both sides lest, the very means designed for furtherance of justice. It has also been held that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice. The relevant paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the case of Sangram Singh (supra) are being reproduced as under:-
"16. Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is ''procedure', something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to ''both' sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it."
"17 Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle."
17. In Chinnammal and other versus Arumugham (1990) 1 SCC 513 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Code of Civil Procedure is body of procedural laws designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as enactment providing for punishment and penalties. The laws of procedure should be so construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible. Paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced as under:-
"16.This is also the principle underlying Section 144 of the CPC. It is the duty of all the Courts as observed by the Privy Council "as aggregate of those tribunals" to take care that no act of the court in the course of the whole of the proceedings does an injury to the suitors in the Court. The above passage was quoted in the majority judgment of this Court in A.R. Amtulay v. R.S. Nayak and Ors., MANU/SC/0002/1988MANU/SC/0002/1988 : 1988CriLJ1661 . Mukherjee, J., as he then was, after referring to the said observation of Lord Cairns, said (at 672):
No man should suffer because of the mistake of the Court. No man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities. Rules or procedures are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of the justice. Ex debito justitiae, we must do justice to him. If a man has been wronged so long as it lies within the human machinery of administration of justice that wrong must be remedied.
17. It is well to remember that the CPC is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The laws of procedure should be so construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible. It is in our opinion, not unreasonable to demand restitution from a person who has purchased the property in court auction being aware of the pending appeal against the decree."
18. In the case of Ghanshyam Das versus Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that our laws of procedure are based on the principle that as far as possible no proceedings in a court of law should be allowed to be defeated on their technicalities. In the case of Sukhveer Singh versus Brijpal Singh (1997) 2 SCC 200 it was held that procedure is the handmaid to substantial rights.
19. In the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association versus Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SCC 3353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rule and procedure are handmaid of justice and not its mistress. It is relevant to reproduce Paragraph 21 of the report as under:-
"21. The use of the word ''shall' in Order VII Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. We have to ascertain the object which is required to be served by this provision and its design and context in which it is enacted. The use of the word ''shall' is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to be construed as directory. The rule in question has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules or procedure are hand-maid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice."
20. This Court in case of Dr. Chandra Deo Tyagi Vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut and others in Writ C No. 34529 of 2006 decided on 10.07.2020 has held in paragraph No. 44 as under:-
"44. Thus, it is settled in law that the procedure is something designed to facilitate justice. The procedural laws are not treated as an enactment providing for punishments or penalties. They are the handmaid of justice and are to be construed in a way to promote justice and not to frustrate it. Any strict interpretation which defeats justice is to be avoided in the light of this object. The applicability of Order 41 Rule 27 to appeals from orders is to be considered to advance justice and the expression ''so far as may be' is to be construed liberally, keeping in view, the object of Rule 27 which is to enable the appellate court to pronounce a satisfactory judgment, if in its judicial discretion the proposed additional evidence is required for pronouncing a satisfactory judgment. The applicability of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. cannot be restricted to the appeals from decrees. The appellate court has to pronounce satisfactory judgment in appeal from orders as well. If it requires the additional evidence to enable it to pronounce a satisfactory judgment it has power & jurisdiction to take additional evidence in appeal from order as well, and particularly when there is no interdict in C.P.C. This Court therefore, holds that Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. applies to the Appeal filed under Section 108 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C."
21. This Court in case of Mool Chand Vs. Trilok Chand and others reported in MANU/UP/0145/2001 held that even if the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 are not applicable in a revisional proceeding, the revisional court is empowered to permit additional evidence in the interest of justice. Paragraph No. 10 of the judgment in case of Mool Chand Vs. Trilok Chand(supra) is quoted as under:-
"10. The settled legal position therefore, is that provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C cannot be pressed into service in a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, but if it appears that additional evidence is essential for doing justice between the parties, the revisional Court may entertain additional evidence in the exercise of inherent powers of the Court."
22. This Court in case of Smt. Malti Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and another in Matters Under Article 227 No. 4312 of 2018 decided on 09.10.2018 has held as under:-
"The situation in the present case, however, is otherwise. The present petition arises out of an order passed by the First Appellate Court in miscellaneous appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. against the injunction order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. At the stage of injunction, there is no adjudication of rights of the parties on evidence. The injunction matter is decided on three principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss so as to protect the suit property and preserve the same as it was on the date of bringing the suit. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court while deciding the miscellaneous appeal is limited to the extent to examine the validity of order enumerated in Clause (r) of Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. The challenge is only regarding the grant of interim protection and, as such, the Appellate Court was not exercising the jurisdiction or power of a Court of regular appeal. Evidence have not been led by the parties as yet in the pending trial. The Trial Court had proceeded to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff having recorded a finding of her long possession over the disputed land and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property. In the miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondents, the plaintiff sought to bring the document i.e. extract of a Municipal Register so as to prove that her name was also recorded in the relevant records. The question as to whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property or has a right to get permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants is not subject matter of miscellaneous appeal. The injunction though interferes with the substantive rights of the parties but its life is short. In appeal filed against the injunction order, the Appellate Court has to see the correctness of the injunction order. In case any evidence is brought on record in the shape of affidavit in miscellaneous appeal, at the most, the same may throw light on the right of the plaintiff to get temporary injunction but it does not determine the substantive right of the parties, at that stage as both the parties will still be having right to lead their evidences.
In the opinion of the Court, in such situation, strict compliance of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. should not have been invoked. No prejudice would be caused to any of the parties by bringing the said evidence on record as the same is only for the purpose of injunction matter and not for disposal of the suit. Being the Appellate Court, it would not be necessary to remit the matter for fresh consideration inasmuch as, it can consider the said evidence by giving other party an opportunity to rebut it and further can decide the injunction matter after making necessary enquiry within the scope of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. In all eventuality, in case the evidence sought to be filed by the plaintiff is allowed to be brought on record of the miscellaneous appeal, the interest of justice would be sub-served and not hindered.
In any case, three conditions as laid down in Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for bringing the additional evidence on record as discussed above, are not attracted in a miscellaneous appeal which is filed against the temporary injunction order. The question of due diligence does not arise inasmuch as, the stage of bringing evidence by the parties has yet not reached. There is no trial nor there is any adjudication of substantive rights of the parties at the stage of temporary injunction.
For the aforesaid, the requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. should not have been insisted by the First Appellate Court in deciding the application moved by the plaintiff to bring the Municipal Assessment Extract on record of miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. The order impugned dated 24.5.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Etawah is, therefore, suffers from manifest illegality. The First Appellate Court is directed to accept the evidence brought by the plaintiff on record vide application 16-Ga and decide the miscellaneous appeal after giving opportunity to the appellants to rebut the said document."
23. The view taken by this Court in case of Smt. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. (supra) is further fortified in view of provisions of C.P.C. particularly Rule 14 of Order VII read with Order XIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are quoted as under:-
"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies. (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him, and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered according, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in the rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
Order XIII
1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues--The parties or their pleader shall produce,on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced :
Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents, --
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witness of the other party, or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]"
24. Normally, the application for interim injunction is decided prior to filing of the written statement and settlement of issues. As per Rule 14 of Order VII, where the plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him, and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII, the document which ought to be produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint or to be entered into the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but not produced or entered accordingly, can be filed and received in evidence with the leave of the court at the hearing of the suit. Order XIII Rule 1 also provides that original documents can be produced at or before the settlement of issues, copy of which has been filed along with the plaint or written statement. In most of the cases, the application for interim injunction/ appeal against an order passed on interim injunction, are decided prior to the stage of leading evidence in the suit and the application for interim relief is normally, decided on the basis of affidavits and the documents filed by the parties.
25. In case of Patel Enterprises Vs. M.P. Ahuja reported in ILR 1992 KARNATAKA 3772 (MANU/KA/0467/1992), the Karnataka High Court held that the party is entitled to place before the appellate Court the relevant evidence to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant facts. In an appropriate case, the Court itself may act upon the relevant evidence produced before it if such an evidence clinchingly concludes the issue. However, if there is any dispute about the material placed before the Court or the material placed before the Court will have to be appreciated with other materials, already on record, it would be a proper exercise of the appellate power to send back the matter to the trial Court, so that the trial Court may exercise its discretion on the entire material on record including the fresh material that is placed at the stage of appeal.
26. So far as contention of counsel for the petitioner that the appellate court should confine to the material placed before the trial court while deciding the interim injunction as only thing has to be seen by the appellate court as to whether the opinion of trial court is fairly possible in the material placed before it and whether on that finding the court below may be said to have exercise its discretion properly. Therefore, there is no question of adducing evidence at the appellate stage is erroneous.
27. The principle behind the above propositions seems to be that in the appeal against an order of temporary injunction, the appellate court has to confine its attention to the material placed before the trial Court and the nature of the order being discretionary, normally the appellate court could not interfere with such an order. If the discretion is exercised unreasonably and not in a judicial manner, only then the appellate court should interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the trial Court.
28. It is correct that appellate court normally decides the correctness of the decision rendered by the trial Court and the normal rule is to confine the attention to the material produced by the parties before the original Court. But, these are all Rules of procedure and will have to be understood in a manner so as to advance Justice and not to deny a person from getting an appropriate relief. There may be several instances where due to unforeseen reasons, a party may not be in a position to produce the relevant material, in such a situation, refusal to entertain such a material produced at the stage of an appeal would certainly result in denial of Justice to the party entitled to the relief. The appeal against an order of temporary injunction is governed by the provisions of Order XLIII of the Code. Rule 2 states that "the rules of Order XLI shall apply so far as may be to appeals from orders". In other words, the provisions of Order XLI, which includes provision governing the production of additional evidence, could be attracted to the appeals filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 so far as may be. The words 'so far as may be' vest in the Appellate Court an appropriate power to consider the entertaining of an application for additional evidence. The facts and circumstances of a particular case will have to be examined, so that the Court can find out whether ultimately the discretion exercised by the trial Court should be upheld or not. The purpose of an Appeal is to see that the party entitled to the relief should be granted the relief.
29. Ordinarily, an application for grant of interim injunction is decided on the basis of affidavits and the material documents produced by the parties without waiting for evidence to come in regular manner therefore, any relevant document which may have been left out from production initially can be brought on record subsequently with the leave of the court provided, it is found to be material for the purpose of effective adjudication of the injunction matter. Such material can also be produced in a miscellaneous appeal preferred against the order of the trial court refusing or allowing interim injunction.
30. From the above observations, it is clear that the appellate Court will be justified in interfering with the exercise of the discretionary order if the said order was made ignoring relevant facts. The relevant facts may be before the trial Court or for reasons beyond the control of the party, relevant facts may not be placed before the trial Court. The real question is whether those facts justified the making of a particular discretionary order. It is in these circumstances it has to be held that the party is entitled to place before the appellate Court the relevant evidence to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant facts. In an appropriate case, the Court itself may act upon the relevant evidence produced before it if such an evidence clinchingly concludes the issue. However, if there is any dispute about the material placed before the Court or the material placed before the Court will have to be appreciated with other materials, already on record, it would be a proper exercise of the appellate power to send back the matter to the trial Court, so that the trial Court may exercise its discretion on the entire material on record including the fresh material that is placed at the stage of appeal.
31. According to Order VII Rule 14, the plaintiff and the defendant have to file the documents or at least list of documents along with the plaint and written statement, but in case, the same is not filed along with the plaint, the same can be filed with the leave of the Court. Normally, hearing of an application for interim injunction or an appeal arising out from an order deciding the injunction application, preceeds the stage of leading evidence in the suit, therefore, in my view there is no impediment in accepting the documents at appellate stage while hearing an appeal against an injunction order.
32. Strict adherence to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 is also not required as the stage of leading evidence is normally not over at the time of consideration of application of interim injunction or an appeal arising from the order passed on injunction application. Further when the documents sought to be filed during miscellaneous appeal can be filed before the trial court as the stage of filing evidence which has yet not arrived, the same can also be filed during miscellaneous appeal. Rule 27 of Order XLI of C.P.C. contemplates the situations when for reasons mentioned in Rule 27, a party is not able to file the evidence/ documents during the pendency of suit and if such contingency exists the appellate court is empowered to permit the party to lead evidence even after decision of the suit. Even in cases where the contingencies mentioned in sub-Rule (1)(a)(aa) of Rule 27 are absent, the appellate court can permit the evidence to be filed, in case, the appellate court requires the document to enable the court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. When such power can be exercised by appellate court even after decision of the suit, in my view there is no impediment for appellate court to exercise such power during pendency of the suit as there is no prohibition in the C.P.C. for the same. My view is also in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in case of Smt. Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra).
33. In the present case also, some of the documents sought by the appellant to be produced before the appellate court were the documents which are in existence prior to decision of injunction application and some of the documents came in existence after the decision of the interim injunction.
34. The court below has also recorded a finding that whether those documents are relevant or irrelevant will be considered at the time of deciding the appeal on merits.
35. In my view, no illegality has been committed by the court below in accepting the evidence filed by the appellant along with application 29-C. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date: 01.08.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)