Gujarat HC Restores Parikh Associates’ Additional-Evidence Plea, Directs It Be Decided Alongside Civil Appeal

In brief

The question

1. Whether an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence should be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal rather than decided beforehand.

The court held

The petition was partly allowed. The order dated 1 April 2026 rejecting the application below Exh. 18 was quashed and set aside, and the application was restored to the Appellate Court’s file for consideration with Regular Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2021, without influence from the earlier observations of either court.

It also directed

The High Court made no determination on the merits of the application; those remained for the Appellate Court to decide in accordance with law.

Any interim relief stood vacated, and the Rule was made absolute accordingly.

01Facts

Parikh Associates challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Vadodara Appellate Court’s order rejecting its application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce additional evidence in Regular Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2021.

¶ 2

The petitioner sought to have the application considered at the final hearing of the appeal.

¶ 3–5

The respondents did not dispute the cited authorities on the timing of consideration, but argued that the application lacked merit and left the question of remand to the Court’s discretion.

¶ 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence should be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal rather than decided beforehand.

¶ 3–7

ii.2. Whether the Appellate Court’s rejection of the application before hearing the appeal should be set aside and the application restored for consideration with the appeal.

¶ 8–10

03Law Applied

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence in specified circumstances, including where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause; it does not permit evidence to be introduced merely to fill lacunae or repair weaknesses in a party’s case (Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2010) 13 SCC 487).

pp. 4–5

An application under the rule should ordinarily be considered at the appeal’s final hearing, after the appellate court has assessed the evidence on record and can determine whether the proposed evidence is necessary (Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148; State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani, (2001) 10 SCC 619; Mukulbhai Rajendra Thakor, Trustees of Shri Sad Vidya Mandal v. Upendrabhai Anupam Joshi, 2019 AIR (Guj.) 42). The High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 4–7 · ¶ 2

04Reasoning

The Appellate Court had rejected the additional-evidence application before hearing the appeal on its merits. Applying the cited authorities, the High Court held that the appellate court should assess the application alongside the appeal, when it can decide whether the proposed evidence is relevant and necessary under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

¶ 6–8

The Court therefore found a procedural error warranting interference, but expressly did not assess the application’s merits; those remained for the Appellate Court to decide in accordance with law.

¶ 9–10