The Supreme Court held that an appellate court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC. Permission to adduce such evidence cannot be granted unless the case sought to be established is already pleaded. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on this legal principle.
Facts Of The Case:
The plaintiffs, Iqbal Ahmed and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 against the defendant, Abdul Shukoor. The plaintiffs claimed they had agreed to purchase the defendant’s house property for ₹10,67,000, having paid ₹5,00,000 as advance. They pleaded that they had sold their own immovable properties to arrange the funds for this purchase and were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendant denied the existence of a valid agreement, contending that his signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers as security for a loan of ₹1,00,000 taken from the plaintiff. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC to produce additional evidence, including house tax records and an encumbrance certificate, to disprove the plaintiffs’ claim of having sold their properties. The High Court allowed the application, admitted the additional evidence, and reversed the Trial Court’s decree. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision to permit and rely on the additional evidence without examining its consonance with the defendant’s pleadings.
Procedural History:
The suit for specific performance was initially decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Trial Court on February 19, 2000. The defendant then filed a Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 440 of 2000) under Section 96 of the CPC before the High Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the defendant filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC seeking permission to produce additional documentary evidence. The High Court, by its judgment dated December 30, 2008, allowed the application, admitted the additional evidence, and subsequently reversed the Trial Court’s decree. Aggrieved by this reversal, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a civil appeal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated August 22, 2025, set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the application for additional evidence was considered without examining its conformity with the defendant’s pleadings. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh reconsideration in accordance with the law.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Slashes NGT’s ₹50 Crore Fine, Rules Turnover Can’t Dictate Environmental Penalty
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made a pivotal observation on the procedural law governing additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Court held that before permitting a party to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC, the Appellate Court must first examine the pleadings of that party. It emphasized that the case sought to be established through the additional evidence must be consistent with and supported by the existing pleadings on record. Allowing evidence on an unpleaded case, the Court observed, would be a futile exercise as such evidence cannot legally be taken into consideration. Consequently, the Court found that the High Court had committed an error by allowing the application for additional evidence without first verifying if the defendant had pleaded a case that such evidence could substantiate, which vitiated the impugned judgment.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in law by allowing the application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC without first examining whether the evidence sought to be adduced was supported by the defendant’s pleadings in the written statement. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh reconsideration of the appeal, along with the application for additional evidence, in accordance with the correct legal principle. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the appeal, given the suit was filed in 1997. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRS. & Anr. Versus Abdul Shukoor Citation: 2025 INSC 1027 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 10458 of 2010 Date of Judgement: August 22, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Download The Judgement Here