Additional evidence cannot introduce a new case or cure evidentiary lacunae on appeal.

Respondent No. 1–plaintiff, Pushpinder Kaur, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 29.08.2013, by which Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly sold two marlas of the suit property to Defendant No. 3, Manmohan Singh, was illegal, null and void. She also sought permanent injunction. Her case was that the property was religious/joint property belonging to the successors of Baba Budha Singh, numbering approximately 26 persons, and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could not alienate any specific portion without partition

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 17.04.2017, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the property was undivided or religious property incapable of alienation. It further held that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and that the registered sale deed had been duly proved as an alienation by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of their respective shares

In first appeal, the plaintiff sought permission under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC to produce additional evidence, including a Will dated 07.02.2003 allegedly executed by Joginder Singh disinheriting his daughter, Defendant No. 2, and a sale deed dated 05.04.1956 relating to the original acquisition of the property

The First Appellate Court allowed the application, set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, permitting amendment of pleadings and production of further oral and documentary evidence

Defendant No. 3 challenged that order before the High Court

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in admitting the Will dated 07.02.2003 and the sale deed dated 05.04.1956 as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?

2. Whether the additional evidence could be used to introduce a substantially new case at the appellate stage and justify remand for a fresh trial?

3. Whether the order of remand directing the Trial Court to permit amendments and further evidence was legally sustainable?

The Court applied Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, under which additional evidence may be admitted by the appellate court only in exceptional circumstances and only when it is necessary to enable the court to pronounce judgment, or where the evidence could not, despite due diligence, be produced before the Trial Court.

The provision cannot be invoked merely to fill evidentiary lacunae, provide a second opportunity to a party that failed to discharge its burden, or introduce a new case in appeal

The Court relied principally on Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, which holds that the power under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be exercised sparingly, as a judicial discretion circumscribed by the Rule; an appellate court should not ordinarily supplement the evidence or permit a party to cure its remissness at the appellate stage

The Court also applied the settled principle that additional evidence cannot be admitted merely to enable a party to obtain a judgment in its favour or to raise a new point not pleaded and tried before the court of first instance

The High Court held that the Will was not necessary for deciding the controversy. The Will allegedly disinherited Defendant No. 2 in favour of her brother and mother, yet the beneficiaries neither asserted succession on the basis of the Will nor were they impleaded as parties. The plaintiff was neither a beneficiary under the Will nor claimed any interest in the share allegedly affected by it. Further, Defendant No. 2’s authority to execute the sale deed had not been challenged on the basis of the Will by the persons in whose favour the Will was made

The plaintiff’s original case was that the property was joint and religious and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 lacked authority to sell any specific portion without partition. The proposed reliance on the Will would instead establish a distinct case—that Defendant No. 2 had no share because she had been individually disinherited—which involved a different succession basis and a different ground of invalidity

Allowing such evidence would effectively permit the plaintiff to abandon the case tried before the Trial Court and obtain a second trial on a new case, contrary to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

The 1956 sale deed was likewise unnecessary because the parties had admitted that Baba Budha Singh was the predecessor-in-interest from whom the property was inherited

Consequently, the First Appellate Court had erred in treating either document as essential for pronouncing judgment and in remanding the suit for fresh evidence and amendments

The matter was sent back to the same First Appellate Court with a direction to decide the civil appeal afresh on its merits, on the basis of the existing record.

The parties were directed to appear before that court on 03.09.2026. The appeal and pending applications were disposed of accordingly