An appellate court must decide every Order XLI Rule 27 application before final judgment.

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 instituted O.S. No. 485 of 1999, subsequently renumbered as O.S. No. 86 of 2006, before the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties described in Plaint Schedules A, B and C.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on 12 September 2006, pursuant to which Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 preferred RFA No. 2076 of 2006 before the High Court of Karnataka; the appellant, arrayed as Defendant No. 1 in the suit, filed RFA Cross-Objection No. 17 of 2012.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1/25 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence and documents.

The High Court heard the matter on 4 November 2025 and reserved orders, but its judgment dated 16 December 2025 dismissing the appeal and cross-objections did not expressly decide the application for additional evidence.

The appellant therefore approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court’s failure to adjudicate I.A. No. 1/25 constituted a jurisdictional and procedural error.

Whether an appellate court is required to independently consider and specifically adjudicate an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC before disposing of the main appeal.

Whether dismissal of an appeal and cross-objections without disposing of a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Whether the High Court’s judgment dated 16 December 2025 was liable to be set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh consideration.

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which generally prohibits production of additional evidence in an appellate court but permits it where the trial court improperly refused evidence, the evidence could not have been produced despite due diligence, or the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause; where additional evidence is admitted, reasons must be recorded.

Relying on Jatinder Singh v. Mehar Singh, North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das, Namdeo v. Tukaram S/o Marotrao Jadhav, Iqbal Ahmed v. Abdul Shukoor, and G. Shashikala v. G. Kalawati Bai, the Court held that an appellate court has a statutory duty to consider an application for additional evidence on its merits, ordinarily alongside the hearing of the appeal, determine whether the evidence is necessary for pronouncing judgment or for another substantial cause, and pass a specific order allowing or rejecting the application; failure to do so before deciding the appeal amounts to a serious procedural and jurisdictional error.

The High Court’s order dated 4 November 2025 merely recorded that the matter was heard and reserved for orders, while the final judgment dated 16 December 2025 did not refer to or adjudicate I.A. No. 1/25.

The Supreme Court distinguished between hearing an application and actually disposing of it.

Since the application allegedly concerned material documents, including judgments in other proceedings, bank-loan discharge documents and surveyor sketches, the High Court was required to examine whether the proposed evidence satisfied Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and whether it was necessary to pronounce judgment satisfactorily.

By deciding the appeal and cross-objections without first recording a reasoned decision on the application, the High Court denied the appellant the procedural opportunity mandated by the CPC and committed a jurisdictional error causing potential miscarriage of justice.

The impugned judgment dated 16 December 2025 was set aside, and the appeal, together with the cross-objections, was restored to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.