Appellate courts should not reject material additional evidence needed to resolve property-identity disputes.

The plaintiff’s suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs concerning immovable property was dismissed by the trial court, which found that the plaintiff had not established the property’s identity and that the pleaded boundaries and measurements were inconsistent with the record

The first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and rejected his application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce additional documents, reasoning that the documents were not pleaded and would fill gaps in the existing evidence

In the second appeal, the plaintiff challenged that rejection and sought remand, including an opportunity to apply for appointment of a Court Commissioner. The respondents, though served, did not appear

1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC without allowing the additional documents said to be relevant to adjudication?

2. Whether the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court were correct and proper?

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC governs the admission of additional evidence in appeal; where additional evidence is allowed, Order XLI Rule 28 CPC permits the appellate court either to take the evidence itself or direct a subordinate court to do so

The Court also referred to Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC as the procedural basis for an application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct a local inspection

No precedent was cited.

The High Court considered the documents sought to be produced relevant and material to resolving the dispute, particularly because the trial court had dismissed the suit for failure to establish the property’s identity and because the parties disputed its location, measurements and boundaries

It therefore held that the first appellate court erred in rejecting the Order XLI Rule 27 application.

Given the same property-identification dispute, the Court considered a local inspection potentially necessary and directed that the matter be reconsidered by the trial court, with liberty to seek a Commissioner and for both parties to adduce further evidence

It set aside the judgments and decrees of both lower courts, allowed the Order XLI Rule 27 application, and remitted the suit to the trial court for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law

The plaintiff was given liberty to apply under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner; both sides were permitted to submit instructions, object to the Commissioner’s report, examine or cross-examine the Commissioner, and adduce additional oral and documentary evidence.

The merits of the parties’ claims were left open