Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Appellate Order Allowing Additional Evidence Without Pleadings

May 09, 2001 : The Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice R.S. Garg, has set aside an order passed by the First Appellate Court that permitted additional evidence without proper pleadings or hearing on merits. The ruling came in a civil revision filed by Hazi Mohammad Hanif Qureshi, who had challenged the appellate court’s decision to allow a certificate showing the date of birth of the vendor in his property dispute case.

The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by Qureshi before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Sakti, in which he sought declaration, possession, and mesne profits. The trial court dismissed the suit, prompting him to file an appeal. During the appeal, the defendants submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to introduce a birth certificate as additional evidence, claiming it showed that the plaintiff’s vendor was a minor at the time of sale.

Despite opposition from Qureshi, the appellate court allowed the application, framed an additional issue, and remitted the matter to the trial court for evidence and findings. Aggrieved by this, Qureshi moved the High Court in revision.

Justice Garg observed that the defendants had not pleaded in their written statement that the sale deed was executed by a minor, which was a necessary factual foundation for raising such an issue. In absence of such pleadings, the court held that the question of minority could not be examined, nor could additional evidence be admitted.

Citing the procedural requirements under Order 8 Rule 1, Order 14 Rule 1, and Order 18 of the CPC, the Court explained that an issue arises only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Without pleadings, no issue could be framed, and therefore, any evidence brought on record would be irrelevant.

Justice Garg also clarified that additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 can only be admitted in specific situations such as when the trial court wrongly refused to admit it, or when despite due diligence, it could not be produced earlier. The appellate court, he held, had failed to follow this requirement and granted the application without hearing the parties on the merits of the case.

Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court directed the appellate court to decide the application for additional evidence along with the main appeal. The court also allowed the defendants to file an application for amendment of their written statement, which should be considered independently and on its own merits. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. The revision was accordingly allowed.

Case Details : Civil Revision No. 262 of 2001, Mohammad Hanif Qureshi vs. Kailashchand and Ors.

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prashant Mishra, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Shrivastava, Adv.