Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.41, r.27, O.41, r.25 and O.41, r.23-A – Additional document – Respondents-plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the suit land – They filed civil suits for permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants – Civil suits were dismissed by the trial Court – Aggrieved, respondents-plaintiffs filed first appeals along with an application u/O.41, r.27 C.P.C. to file additional documents – First Appellate Court not only allowed the application u/O.41, r.27 C.P.C. but further placed reliance on the additional evidence tendered by the respondents-plaintiffs and decreed all the civil suits in favour of them – On appeal, held: Judgment of the First Appellate Court unsustainable – First Appellate Court committed jurisdictional errors – It took into consideration the additional piece of evidence while deciding the appeals on merits without affording any opportunity to the appellants-defendants to file any rebuttal evidence to counter the additional evidence adduced by the respondents-plaintiffs – Furthermore, after allowing application u/O.41, r.27 C.P.C. the First Appellate Court could have either set aside the entire judgment/decree of the trial Court u/O.41, r.23-A C.P.C. and remanded the case to the trial Court for re-trial or it could have invoked powers u/O.41, r.25 C.P.C. by retaining the appeals to itself and referring the case to the trial Court on a limited issue of additional evidence – These jurisdictional errors caused prejudice to the appellants while opposing first appeals – Thus, matter remitted to the trial Court u/O.41, r.23-A C.P.C. for retrial of all civil suits on merits afresh – Jurisdiction. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals. First, it took into consideration the additional piece of evidence while deciding the appeals on merits without affording any opportunity to the appellants herein (who were respondents in the first appeals) to file any rebuttal evidence to counter the additional evidence adduced by the respondents (appellants before the first Appellate Court). This caused prejudice to the appellants herein because they suffered the adverse order from the Appellate Court on the basis of additional evidence adduced by the respondents for the first time in appeal against them.[Paras 14-15] [903-H; 904-A-B]
1.2 The Second error was of a procedure which the first Appellate Court failed to resort in disposing of the appeals. This also involved a question of jurisdiction. The first Appellate Court had two options, first it could have either set aside the entire judgment/decree of the Trial Court by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23-A of the Code and remanded the case to the Trial Court for re-trial in the suits so as to enable the parties to adduce oral evidence to prove the additional evidence in accordance with law or second, it had an option to invoke powers under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code by retaining the appeals to itself and remitting the case to the Trial Court for limited trial on particular issues arising in the case in the light of additional evidence which was taken on record and invite findings of the Trial Court on such limited issues to enable the first Appellate Court to decide the appeals on merits. [Paras 16-17] [904-D-F] Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah & Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 9: [1977]
1 SCR 178; Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 423: [2010] 10 SCR 703 ; Akhilesh Singh v. Lal Babu Singh & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 759 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.