MAHAVIR SINGH AND ORS.versusNARESH CHANDRA AND ANR.

A                           MAHAVIR SINGH AND ORS.
                                            v.
                          NARESH CHANDRA AND ANR.

                                 NOVEMBER 8, 2000

B              [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]


           Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

          Section 115-Sections 107, 151 read with Order XL/, rule 27-High
C   Court in revisiori petition allowing application to adduce additional evidence
    in proceedings before appellate court-Correctness of-Held, the High Court
    could not have interfered particularly when the whole appeal was not before
    it.

D          Respondent-plaintiffs filed suit before trial court for specific
     performance of agreement for sale, delivery of vacant possession and for
     declaration of suit-property. The respondents also filed an application to the
     Income Tax Department for obtaining clearance of the said property. The suit
     was dismissed by the trial court. In the course of the trial, the original
     agreement for sale was sent for scientific examination. Evidence of
E    interpolation in some pages of the agreement was found. An appeal was filed
     before the District Judge by the respondents. An application was also filed
     under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section
     151 CPC to adduce additional evidence. The respondents prayed for direction
    from the appellate court for examination of the original agreement for sale
F   and the copy produced before the Income Tax Department by a Forensic
    Science Laboratory after verifying the requisite facilities available in the
    Laboratory. The appellate court dismissed the said application. The
    respondents filed a revision petition under section 115 of the CPC before th    0



    High Court. The revision petition was allowed by the High Court. The High
    Court held that the latest facility was not available at the time when the parties
G   led evidence before the trial court and since the facility had become available
    subsequently, there was sufficient cause to permit the respondents to adduce
    additional evidence and allowed the said documents to be examined by a
    Forensic Science Laboratory.

          In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the High Court
H
                                          454
                 MAHAVIR SINGH v. NARESH CHANDRA                             455

examined the matter as if it was an original proceeding without taking into         A
account the limited scope of Order XLI, Rule 27 read with section 107 of the
CPC.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1. Section 107 CPC enables an appellate court to take additional       B
evidence or to require such other evidence to be taken subject to such
conditions and limitations as are prescribed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the
CPC. Principle to be observed ordinarily is that the appellate court should
not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take evidence on
appeal. However, section l07(d) CPC is an exception to the general rule and
additional evidence can be taken only when the conditions and limitations laid      C
down in the said rule are found to exist. The court is not bound under the
circumstances mentioned under the rule to permit additional evidence and
the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence and
the matter is entirely in the discretion of the court, which is, of course, to be
exercised judiciously and sparingly. f458-H; 459-A-BI                               D
       2. Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC envisages three situations when
 additional evidence can be adduced. In the present case, it is not the case of
either party that the first situation is attracted. So far as the second situation,
question of exercise of due diligence would not arise because the concerned
scientific laboratory from which examination is sought to be made itself was E
not in existence at the time of trial and so that clause is not attracted. In the
third circumstance, the appellate court may require any document to be
 produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment
or for any other substantial cause. The expression "to enable it to pronounce
judgment" has been subject to several decisions wherein it was held that when
the appellate court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna . F
or defect in the evidence as it stands, it may admit additional evidence. The
ability to pronounce a judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce
a judgment satisfactory to the mind of court delivering it. It is only a lacuna
in the evidence that will empower the court to admit additional evidence. But
a mere difficulty in coming to a decision is not sufficient for admission of G
evidence under this rule. The words "or for any other substantial cause" must
be read with the word "requires", which is set out at the commencement of
the provision, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the
appellate court requires additional evidence, that this rule would apply. It is
under these circumstances such a power could be exercised. Therefore, when
the first appellate court did not find the necessity to allow the application, H
    456                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   how the High Court could, in exercise of its power .under section 115 CPC,
    could have interfered with such an order, particularly when the whole appeal
    is not before the court. It is only in the circumstances when the appellate
    court requires such evidence to pronounce the judgment the necessity to
    adduce additional evidence would arise and not in any other circumstances.
B   When the first appellate court passed the order on the application filed under
    Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, the whole appeal was before it and if the first
    appellate court is sat!sfied that additional evidence was not required, the High
    Court ought not to have interfered with such an order under section 115 CPC. .
                                                             (459-C, F-H; 460-A-CI

C         3. This Court cannot be agreed that since the documents had been sent
    to the concerned laboratory and the opinion had been ascertained, the matter
    can be examined by the Court. This trend, ifallowed, would result in that at
    any stage of the case, either in the first appeal or the second appeal, the
    additional evidence is sought to be adduced on the ground that better scientific
    evidence can be adduced, the process would become unending. It is only in the
D   circumstances prescribed under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC such power can
    be exercised. If the first appellate court deemed it necessary to allow the
    parties to adduce additional evidence, it ought to have examined the entire
    evidence and when°'i"t was rejecting the application, it felt that the evidence
    already on record was sufficient one way or the other. It is open to the parties
E   to urge that aspec~ of the· case in an appeal that may arise on disposal of the
    matter by the First Appellate court. (460-G".'H; _461-A-B)

          Gurdev Singh and Ors. v. Mehnga Ram and Anr., (1997) 6 SCC 507, .
    relied on.

         Parsotin Thakur v. Lal Mehar Thakur, AIR (1931) PC 143 and The
F   Municipal Corporation of qreater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and Ors., AIR
    (1965) SC 1008, referred to.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6286 of2000.

         From the Judgment a~d Order dated 12.7.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana
G   High Court in C.R.P: No. 824-opooo.

          P.P. Rao, Atul Kumar and Ranbir Singh Yadav for the Appellants.

          Gopal Subramanium and Manoj Swat-up for the Respondents.

H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     MAHA VIR SINGH v. NARESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.)457

      RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.                                               A
        This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court in a revision
petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by which
 it allowed an application filed by the respondents- plaintiffs under Order XLI,
Rule 27 read with Section I 51 CPC by setting aside the order dated 24. I 2. I 999
passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, refusing to permit the                B
respondents-plaintiffs to adduce additional evidence by the said application.
The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for (i) specific performance of the
agreement to s~ll dated 30.1.1995, (ii) delivery of vacant possession and (iii)
 a declaration that the defendant No. I was an absolute owner of the land
 measuring 102 kanals and 14 marlas as descri~ed in the plaint. In pursuance         C
 of the said agreement, it is alleged that the defendants submitted on 7.2.1995
an application to the Income Tax Department for obtaining clearance for sale
of the said land which was signed by the plaintiff No. I and defendant No. I
along with certain other documents attached thereto. After trial, the trial court
 dismissed the suit against which a regular appeal was filed. In the course of
the trial the original agreement of sale produced before the court was sent for      D
 scientific examination. PW-8, Ashok Kashyap, who is stated to be Hand-
 Writing and Finger Prints Expert, deposed that he had examined the original
agreement to sell dated· 30. I. I 995 and found evidence of interpolation at
pages 2 and 3. In the appeal filed before the learned District Judge, an
application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC read with Section I5 l CPC is filed         E
by the respondents to adduce additional evidence. The contention put forth
in the appellate court is that the original agreement for sale and the copy of
                                                           0



agreement produced before Income Tax Department sh ould be examined by
Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of N.C.T., D~lhi or by any other
Government Forensic Science Laboratory having sufficient instruments or
apparatus for detection of erasyers thereby asking the Court to make detailed        F
inquiry as to whether the said facilities are available in any laboratory and
then to send the documents to such laboratory. The appellate court dismissed
the said application by the order made on 24.12.1999. Being aggrieved by that
order, a revision petition was preferred before the High Court, as stated earlier.

      It is unfortunate that the appellant made a representation to the Chief        G
Justice of the High Court to list the case before another Judge in the
circumstances set forth in the representation and a copy of which was also
sent to the learned Judge. However, it appears that this aspect does not seem
to have been pursued with and the same learned Judge before whom the
matter was listed heard the matter and decided the same. These allegations           H
     458                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A have been reiterated in the course of the special leave petition. Preliminary
     objection is raised by the respondents to the effect that the case came up for
     hearing in the High Court on 28.3.2000 and 25.4.2000, while the representation
     had been made on 23 .3 .2000 but not brought to the notice of the learned
     Judge nor any objection to this effect during the course of the hearing of the
B    matter by the learned Judge was raised before him before the arguments were
     concluded and, therefore, reiteration of those apprehensions in the course of
    the special leave petition will tantamount to making allegations against the
     learned Judge of the High Court which are uncalled for and this Court should
    not entertain the special leave petition at all in view of the conduct of the
    appellant. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect of the
C   matter. Though certain apprehensions have been expressed by the appellant
    as to the appropriateness of the hearing of the matter by the learned Judge
    whose order is under appeal before us, the same has not been pursued with
    either before the same learned Judge or before the Jearned Chief Justice of
    the High Court. A mere reiteration of the circumstances set forth in the said
    representation will not disentitle the appellant to file this special leave petition.
D   In that view of the matter, we overrule the preliminary objection raised by the
    learned counsel for the respondents.

           The learned Judge examined the matter as ifhe was deciding an original
     proceeding before him without bearing in mind the limited scope of Order XLI,
E    Rule 27 CPC and on a revision petition filed against an order made on the
     application filed by the respondents the learned Judge proceeded to advert
     to the nature of the facilities available in the Forensic Science Laboratory,
     Government ofN.C.T., Delhi. The observations made by the learned District
     Judge on the application filed by respondents were held to be not appropriate
     by the learned Judge. The view expressed by the learned District Judge was
F    termed as 'fallacious'. The High Court took the view that the latest facility
     was not available at the time when the parties led the evidence before the trial
    court and if this facility becagte available only in the year 1999 and if the
    plaintiff wants to get the disputed documents examined by such Laboratory,
    it could not be said that it will not be a sufficient cause to permit the plaintiff
G   to adduce additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal. On that
    basis the learned Judge proceeded to order that it w~s not appropriate exercise
    of the discretion vested in the trial court and would require interference by
    the High Court in the orikinal jurisdiction.

          Before we proceed further we would like to refer to the scope of an
H   application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC. Section 107 CPC enables an
    MAHAVIR SINGH v. NARESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.}459

appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such other evidence      A
to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as are prescribed under
Order XL!, Rule 27 CPC. Principle to be observed ordinarily is that the
appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and
cannot take evidence on appeal. 1-fowever, Section 107(d) CPC is an exception
to the general rule, and additional evidence can be taken only when the
conditions and limitations laid down in the said rule are found to exist. The      B
court is not bound under the circumstances mentioned under the rule to
permit additional evidence and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the
admission of such evidence and the matter is entirely in the discretion of the
court, which is, of course, to be exercised judiciously and sparingly. The
scope of Order XL!, Rule 27 CPC was examined by the Privy Council in               C
Parsotin Thakur v. Lal Mehar Thakur, AIR (1931) PC 143, in which it was
laid down clearly that this rule alone can be looked to for taking additional
evidence and that the court has no jurisdiction to admit such evidence in
cases where this rule does not apply. Order XL!, Rule 27 CPC envisages
certain circumstances when additional evidence can be adduced :
                                                                                   D
        (i)   the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused
              to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
        (ii) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes
             that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence
             was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of      E
             due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree
             appealed against was passed, or
        (iii) the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any
              witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or
              for any other substantial cause.
                                                                                   F
In the present case, it is not the case of either party that the first situation
is attracted. So far as the second circumstance noticed above is concerned,
question of exercise of due diligence would not arise because the concerned
scientific equipment from which examination is sought to be made itself was
not in existence at the time of trial and so that clause is also not attracted.    G
In the third circumstance the appellate court may rec:uire any document to be
produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment,
or for any other substantial cause. The expression "to enable it to pronounce
judgment" has been subject of several decisions including Syed Abdul Khader
v. Rami Reddy & Ors., AIR ( 1979) SC 553 wherein it was held that when the
appellate court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna        H
     460                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A or defect in the evidence as it stands, it may admit _additional evidence. The
    ability to pronounce a judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce
    a judgment satisfactory to the mind of court delivering it. It is only a lacuna
    in the evidence that will empower the court to admit additional evidence {See:
    The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. LalaPancham & Ors.,
    AIR ( 1965) SC l 008. But a mere difficulty in coming to a decision is not
B sufficient for admission of evidence under this mle. The words "or for any
    other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires", which is set
   out at the commencement of the provision, so that it is only where, for any
   other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence,. that
   this rule would apply as noticed by the Privy Council in Parsotin Thakur v.
C Lal Mehar Thakur, [supra]. It is under these circumstances such a power
   could be exercised. Therefore, when the first appellate court did not find the
   necessity to allow the application, we fail to understand as to how the High
   Court could, in exercise of its power under Section 115 CPC, could have
   interfered with such an order, particularly when the whole appeal is not before
   the court. It is only in the circumstances when the appellate court requires
D such evidence to pronounce the judgment the necessity to adduce additional ·
   evidence would arise and not in any other circumstances. When the first
  appellate court passed the order on the application filed under Order XLI,
   Rule 27 CPC, the whole appeal was before it and if the first appellate court
   is satisfied that additional evidence was not required, we fail to understand
E as to how the High Court could interfere with such an order under Section
   115 CPC. In this regard, we may notice the decision of this Court in Gurdev
  Singh & Ors. v. Mehnga Ram & Anr., [1997] 6 SCC 507, in which the scope
  of exercise of power under Section 115 CPC on an order passed in an application
  filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC was considered. When this decision was
  cited before the High Court, the same was brushed aside by stating that the
F principle stated therein is not applicable to the facts of this case. We do not
  think so. The High Court ought not to have interfered with such an order.

           Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel for the respondents,
    submitted that now that the documents had been sent to the concerned
G   Laboratory and the opinion had been ascertained, the matter can certainly be
    examined by the court. We cannot agree as this trend, if allowed, would result
    in that at any stage of the case either in the first appeal or the second appeal,
    the additional evidence is sought to be adduced on the ground that better -
    scientific evidence can be adduced, the process would become unending. It
    is only in the circumstances prescribed under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC such
H   power can be exercised. He contended that if the order of the High Court
             MAHAVIR SINGH v. NARESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 461

      could not be sustained on the ground that the entire appeal was not before          A
      it, the order of the first appellate court also cannot be sustained because while
    • examining the effect of the evidence in the course of the appeal, the application
      under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC could have been dismissed. But the argument
-     ignores the fact that if the first appellate court had deemed it necessary to
      allow the parties to adduce additional evidence, it ought to have examined the      B
      entire evidence and when it was rejecting the application, it felt that the
      evidence already on record was sufficient one way or the other. In that view
      of the matter, we do not wish to express any opinion on this matter as it is
      open to the parties to urge that aspect of the case in an appeal that may arise
      on disposal of the matter by the First Appellate Court.

            We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High
                                                                                          c
      Court and restore that of the first appellate court and the matter shall stand
      over for further consideration by it in accordance with Jaw. The appeal is
      allowed accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no
      order as to costs.

      B.S.                                                           Appeal allo'"'.ed.