The Gujarat High Court stated that just because some evidence is important does not mean it can be accepted in an appeal.
The Gujarat High Court emphasized that just because some evidence is important does not automatically justify its admission in an appeal. This statement was made in response to a petition aimed at overturning the Additional District Judge’s decision, which denied a request to present additional documents under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Justice Divyesh A. Joshi explained that the Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, clarified that factors like a party’s oversight, lack of understanding of legal matters, poor advice from a lawyer, or not recognizing a document’s significance do not qualify as “substantial cause” for admitting new evidence. The court noted that Order XLI, Rule 27 allows the Appellate Court to consider additional evidence only in special situations, and parties cannot claim the right to have such evidence accepted.
The Bench highlighted that while the Appellate Court can allow extra evidence if specific conditions are met, it is not guaranteed. Advocate A.B. Munshi represented the Petitioners, while Advocates Satyam Chhaya and Parv C. Mehta represented the Respondents.
In this case, the Petitioners were the original Defendants, and the Respondents were the original Plaintiffs. A Special Civil Suit was filed against the Petitioners to obtain vacant possession of a plot. The Defendants received a notice, and the Additional Senior Civil Judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, ordering the Defendants to vacate the property within 60 days and canceling the Sale Deed.
The Petitioners, feeling wronged, went to the District Court in Ahmedabad by filing a Regular Civil Appeal. At the same time, they filed an Application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to present more documents. The District Judge partially approved this Application. As a result, the case moved to the High Court. After listening to the lawyers, the High Court noted that the general rule is that an appellate court should not consider new evidence outside the lower court’s record. However, if the additional evidence can clarify doubts and is crucial to the main issue, it may be allowed for the sake of justice.
The High Court stated, based on previous rulings, that the Petitioners did not meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 in their application to the Appellate Court. It pointed out that the Petitioners failed to properly justify why the new documents were essential for a fair decision. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Javedbhai @ Javedkhan Babubhai Saiyad & Ors. v. Sikandarali Kasamali Kureshi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:GUJHC:60783)
