Admission of additional evidence permitted for essential documents discovered post-judgment despite the exercise of due diligence.

The Appellants (original plaintiffs) instituted a suit for recovery of possession, use and occupation charges, damages, mesne profits, and permanent injunction

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on August 28, 2018

The Appellants preferred a Regular First Appeal (RFA) along with an application under Order XLI Rule 27(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to bring on record additional evidence: an Agreement to Sell and a Receipt, both dated May 18, 1970

The Appellants submitted that these documents were in the possession of Appellant No. 3 (their mother), who died during the pendency of the suit in 2013

The documents were reportedly untraceable until September 2018, when they were discovered in an almirah by the daughter of the deceased Appellant No. 3 following the dismissal of the suit

Whether the Appellants exercised due diligence and if the additional documents sought to be produced are necessary for the adjudication of the appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC

Order XLI Rule 27(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows an appellate court to admit additional evidence if the party seeking its production establishes that such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by them at the time the decree appealed against was passed

The court also assessed the relevance of the evidence for the adjudication of the dispute

The court noted that the Trial Court had specifically dismissed the suit partly because no Agreement to Sell in favor of Appellant No. 3 had been filed

the court observed that the existing record contained an affidavit from the original seller (Ex.PW-1/5) which explicitly mentioned the execution of an Agreement to Sell and the delivery of vacant possession to Appellant No. 3

the court found the missing documents to be "necessary and relevant" for the adjudication of the appeal

Regarding the delay, the court accepted the explanation that the death of the mother (the custodian of the documents) and the subsequent discovery of the papers by her daughter after the trial constituted sufficient due diligence

The court granted the Respondent liberty to file an affidavit of admission/denial regarding these documents within four weeks. The matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar on April 28, 2026, for the marking of exhibits upon production of original documents. The main appeal was scheduled for hearing on August 12, 2026