Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the legal representatives of the original defendants against the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The dispute originated from two suits: one for declaration of title and delivery of possession of a suit house (O.S. No. 1402 of 1992) and another for perpetual injunction (O.S. No. 432 of 1993). The Trial Court decreed the title suit and dismissed the injunction suit. Both parties appealed to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeals, both parties filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The High Court allowed the respondents' application (IA No. 428/2011) and admitted the documents, but did not pass any order on the appellants' application (IA No. 5/2011). Subsequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the Trial Court's judgment. The Supreme Court found that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without following the settled law laid down in North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das, Shalimar Chemical Works v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills, and Corporation of Madras v. M. Parthasarathy. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim order allowing the application and the final judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh hearing of the appeals and the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on their merits, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Jurisdictional Error - High Court allowed respondents' application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without following the law laid down in North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das, Shalimar Chemical Works v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills, and Corporation of Madras v. M. Parthasarathy - Held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by not noticing the settled principles governing the admission of additional evidence in appeal (Paras 13-15). B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Fresh Hearing - Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for fresh hearing of the appeals and the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in accordance with law - Held that the High Court must decide the applications and appeals afresh, uninfluenced by any observations (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeals without properly deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in accordance with settled law.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned order and interim order dated 11.07.2016 set aside. Case remanded to High Court for fresh hearing of the appeals and applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- Additional evidence in appeal
- Remand for fresh hearing
