The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a petition challenging an appellate court’s refusal to admit additional evidence, clarifying that while accepting additional evidence requires recorded reasons under Order XLI Rule 27(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a rejection does not necessitate a detailed order provided the court has applied its mind to the relevance of the documents.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam, presiding over the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the appellate court’s discretion to admit or refuse additional evidence must be exercised on settled judicial principles and should not be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a suit for specific performance filed in 1998 by Smt. Namrata Saraswat (the respondent) against Bhupendra Singh (the petitioner) regarding an agreement to sell a residential plot in Ghaziabad dated October 14, 1992. The trial court had partly decreed the suit in 2010, ordering a refund of the earnest money with interest but refusing the decree for specific performance.
The respondent appealed this decision (Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2010). During the appellate proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce 17 documents as additional evidence. These documents primarily related to the allotment and demarcation of the land by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to a Cooperative Society and subsequently to the petitioner.
The Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, rejected this application on January 4, 2025, leading to the current challenge before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner: Counsel Sri Ritvik Upadhya argued that the documents had a “direct and significant bearing” on the controversy and were necessary for rendering a correct judgment. He contended that the lower appellate court failed to record adequate reasons for the rejection, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand (2022), which emphasizes admitting evidence that “removes the cloud of doubt over the case.”
For the Respondent: Ms. Vishakha Pandey, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the application did not meet the conditions of Order XLI Rule 27(1). She argued that “additional evidence” presupposes the existence of some evidence, noting that the petitioner’s opportunity to lead evidence in the trial court had been closed. She further asserted that the court has the sole discretion to decide if evidence is “required” to pronounce judgment.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court examined the statutory framework of Section 107 and Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. The Court noted that Rule 27(1) begins with a negative condition: “The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence… in the Appellate Court,” signifying that admission is an exception, not the rule.
Regarding the requirement of recording reasons, the Court observed:
“The requirement of law is that while accepting an additional evidence, the appellate court is required to record reasons. It is true that every judicial order is to be supported by reasons but in my view while rejecting an application for additional evidence, court is not required to give very detailed reason for rejecting the application…”
Justice Nigam emphasized that “sufficient compliance of law will be if from the order it is reflected that court has applied its minds to facts of the case, evidence on record, and to the relevance of evidence sought to be produced.”
On the merits of the documents, the Court found that many of the 17 items (allotment letters, demarcation memos) were not relevant because the petitioner had already admitted to the agreement to sell in his written statement. The Court noted:
“These documents are not at all relevant for disposal of the suit as the plaintiff himself in the suit has pleaded that after the allotment, an agreement to sell has been executed which has not been denied by the petitioner… any preceding proceedings are not relevant.”
Addressing the “requirement” of the court under Clause (b) of Rule 27(1), the Court cited the Privy Council in Parsotim Thakur Vs. Lal Mohar Thakur (1931):
“It may be required to enable the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, but in either case it must be the Court that requires it… The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is… ‘when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent.'”
The Court further clarified that the term “additional evidence” does not necessitate that the party must have led some evidence in the lower court, citing Jaipur Development Authority vs. Kailash Pati Devi (1997).
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the lower appellate court had provided “cogent reasons” for rejecting the application and that the documents were not necessary for the controversy. The Court held that the superior court should not interfere with such discretionary power unless it is arbitrary.
Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the order dated January 4, 2025, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bhupendra Singh vs. Smt. Namrata Saraswat
- Case No.: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 1527 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
- Date: April 23, 2026
