Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Turning to the applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, the law is well settled now vide Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (2012) 8 SCC 148 and Malayalam Plantations Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and another (2010) 13 SCC 487 that such applications have to be taken up with the main appeal.

In Ibrahim Uddin, the facts are one Mr.Ibrahim Uddin filed a suit in O.S.No.442 of 1995 before Court of Civil Judge, Agra seeking a decree for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property stating that originally suit land had been with Maratha Government and ancestors of plaintiff having close association with Maratha Government, were made a grant in respect of the suit land in the year 1800. The land was subsequently partitioned between the ancestors of the plaintiff in the year 1819. He became the absolute owner of the land after the death of his mother Smt.Hasin Begum. The suit land was given on rent to State authorities in Agra by executing a rent note. Union of India had claimed title over the suit land illegally. The suit was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.104 of 2003 contested. The trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove the partition between his ancestors and the lease deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the Military Estate Officer under Union of India was not successfully proved and hence dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred the first appeal before the District Court, Agra and during the pendency of the said appeal, he preferred an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC adducing additional evidence. The said application was allowed by the first appellate Court and the first appeal was also allowed by the first appellate Court. Having aggrieved, Union of India preferred second appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed. Against the dismissal, the appellant approached Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue qua Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, has observed that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower Court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, it was held that this Rule is not so absolute that it does not admit of exception as Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC was held to enable the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances but the appellate court may permit additional evidence only if the conditions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application No.104 of 2003 laid down in the Rule are found to exist.

Relevant paragraphs in Ibrahim Uddin are paragraphs 36 and 49 and the same read as follows:

'36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, 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 is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526] , Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008] , Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal [(1975) 3 SCC 698 :
16. If any petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 in an appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate court to consider at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. It is trite to observe that under Order 41 Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the appellate court to pronounce the judgment or any other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis substantial cause of similar nature.' Review Application No.104 of 2003 The aforementioned Ibrahim Uddin and Malayalam Plantations principles make it clear that when the OSAs were disposed of along with the main appeal, the CMPs filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC ought to have been taken up and the same should have been decided but the same was not done and this, by itself, becomes a ground for review as it falls under the category of 'any other sufficient reason'.