Appellate Court’s discretion to admit additional evidence is governed by its own requirement, not party defaults.

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.10.1992 regarding a residential plot.

The petitioner (defendant) contested, claiming he was a sub-lessee and lacked competence to transfer the property without permission from a Cooperative Society.

During the trial, the petitioner’s opportunity to lead evidence was closed due to his absence.

The trial court refused the decree for specific performance but ordered a refund of earnest money.

On appeal by the respondent, the First Appellate Court initially allowed the appeal, but after a remand from the High Court, the petitioner filed an application (Paper No. 153-Ga) under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. to produce additional documents.

The Appellate Court rejected this application on 04.01.2025, leading to the present challenge.

1. Whether the words "additional evidence" in Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. imply that a party must have led some evidence in the trial court to be eligible to file further evidence at the appellate stage.

2. Whether the Appellate Court is mandatorily required to record reasons for the rejection of an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C.

3. Whether the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner were necessary for the court to pronounce judgment or for any other "substantial cause" under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b).

The Court applied Section 107(1)(d) C.P.C., which empowers an appellate court to take additional evidence subject to prescribed limitations.

Order XLI Rule 27(1) C.P.C. prohibits additional evidence unless the trial court improperly refused evidence, the party establishes due diligence (under clause aa), or the Appellate Court itself "requires" the evidence to pronounce judgment or for "substantial cause" (under clause b).

Relying on K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy, the Court noted that "requires" means finding the evidence needful to pronounce a satisfactory judgment.

Per Jaipur Development Authority v. Kailash Pati Devi, "additional evidence" does not necessitate that some evidence was led in the lower court.

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand emphasizes that additional evidence may be allowed if it has a direct bearing on the main issue or removes a "cloud of doubt".

The Court analyzed the three clauses of Rule 27(1) and determined that under clause (b), the requirement is that of the Court, not the party.

It clarified that while Rule 27(2) mandates recording reasons for admitting evidence, there is no strict statutory mandate to provide exhaustive reasons for rejection, though judicial mind-application is necessary.

Upon examining the 17 documents the petitioner sought to introduce (mostly relating to allotment and demarcation), the Court found they were irrelevant because the execution of the agreement to sell was not denied, and the preceding administrative history of the plot did not impact the legal controversy of specific performance.

The Court concluded that the petitioner was merely attempting to "patch up" a case lost due to his own negligence in the trial court.

It distinguished the petitioner's situation from Sanjay Kumar Singh, noting that in the present case, sufficient material already existed on record for the Appellate Court to decide the matter.

It ruled that the petitioner’s documents lacked relevance to the core issue and their rejection was not arbitrary.

The Court affirmed that even if a party led no evidence at trial, they are not barred from applying under Rule 27, though they must still meet the strict criteria of the Rule.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Appellate Court's order of rejection was upheld.