Read Time: 09 minutes

The Top Court on Thursday held that where the additional evidence sought to be adduced before an appellate court 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 to bring such evidence on record may be allowed.

While clarifying that as per the general principle, the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal, the court referred to an exception, i.e., Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances.

"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", added a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.

One Sanjay Kumar Singh approached the top court seeking an enhancement to the amount of compensation awarded to him by the State of Jharkhand after his land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Singh was awarded a total compensation of Rs.92,121/- for the entire acquired land. A reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act at his instance came to be rejected.

He then preferred an appeal before the High Court being First Appeal No. 44/2007. Before the High Court, Singh filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and proposed to bring on record certain sale deeds and the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 23.08.2006 and 21.09.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 12/1989; 27/1989; 32/1989 and 52/1989, which, according to him, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value.

The said application and the appeal both came to be dismissed.

At the outset, the top court noted that before the Reference Court as well as before the High Court, the only evidence produced on record was the sale deed which was rejected from being considered and as such there was no other evidence/material on record to arrive at a fair market value for the acquired land.

"..the High Court while considering the application for additional evidence has not appreciated the fact that the documents which were sought to be produced as additional evidence might have a bearing on determination of the fair market value of the acquired land...", remarked the top court.

The Court further held that the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court could be considered is, when the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature.

Relying on the dictum in A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, the court observed that 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.

In A. Andisamy Chettiar it was further observed that the true test, therefore was, 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.

Applying the aforementioned law, the top court found that the High Court had not at all adverted to the said relevant consideration.

The court accordingly went on to allow the IA filed by Sing before the High Court while adding that,

"...the documents which are permitted to be brought on record as additional evidence have to be proved by the appellant before the Reference Court, in accordance with law and only thereafter and after proving the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the said documents including contents thereof, the same can be taken into consideration by the Reference Court."

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand