Adv Akash Rathi, Lex Maven

Test for Additional Evidence

REf- Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-03-2022
Sanjay Kumar Singh …Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …Respondent

Notable Points-
1. It is true 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 the appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances.

2. It may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence.

3. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed.

4. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial
cause of like nature.

5. As observed and held by this Court in the case of A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 713, the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.

6. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.

7. we are of the opinion that while considering the application for additional evidence, the High Court has not at all adverted to the aforesaid relevant consideration, i.e., whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced would have a direct bearing on pronouncing the judgment or for any other substantial cause. As observed hereinabove, except sale deed 29.12.1987, which as such was rejected, there was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land.

9. In the mnatter of Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, (2018) 10 SCC 484, allowing the  application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not lead to the result that the additional documents/additional evidence can be straightway exhibited rather, the applicant would have to not only prove the
existence, authenticity, and genuineness of the said documents but also
the contents thereof, in accordance with the law.

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/41432/41432_2019_12_1503_33976_Judgement_10-Mar-2022.pdf