The Supreme Court has ruled that litigants have no automatic or vested right to introduce additional evidence during appeals under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure; such permission lies solely at the appellate court’s discretion, granted only if stringent conditions are met. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed a challenge from Gwalior landowners claiming adverse possession over disputed property, upholding the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s decree without addressing a pending evidence application.
The dispute centered on Survey No. 2029 (8 bighas 10 biswas) in Gwalior’s Murar area, opposite Baaj Cinema Hall. Appellants Gobind Singh and others asserted title through uninterrupted possession since their predecessors’ time, erecting fencing, shops, and crops. They sued for declaration and injunction after Union of India officials attempted encroachment on December 4, 1989, claiming the land transferred from Madhya Pradesh in 1953 for defense purposes.
The Vth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, decreed in favor of the plaintiffs on March 25, 1996, accepting adverse possession. The Union appealed to the High Court, where plaintiffs sought to adduce fresh evidence via an Order XLI Rule 27 application during pendency. Remarkably, the High Court—without adjudicating this—allowed the appeal on August 12, 2009, dismissing the suit. A review petition followed, rejected on March 15, 2011.
Before the apex court, appellants decried the non-adjudication as miscarriage of justice, arguing it vitiated the reversal. Justice Nath, authoring the verdict, disagreed: “The appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.”
Order XLI Rule 27 permits additional evidence in three scenarios: (i) trial court wrongly refused admissible evidence; (ii) despite due diligence, evidence was unavailable earlier; or (iii) appellate court needs it for judgment or substantial cause. Citing Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148, the bench stressed: “Unless the requirements… are strictly satisfied, a party cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence… Such permission cannot be granted as a matter of course.”
Here, appellants’ core claim rested on possession, not documents; late evidence couldn’t “fill gaps” in a flawed case post-trial. The High Court’s omission caused no prejudice, as the application failed the “due diligence” test anyway. Dismissing the appeals, the Court affirmed procedural rigor prevents appellate “fishing expeditions,” ensuring finality without undue delays.
Case Title: Gobind Singh and Ors. versus Union of India and Ors. | Civil Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 of 2011|2026 INSC 211
Click HERE for full judgment.
Lawcutor 