Material additional evidence requiring rebuttal warrants remand for fresh adjudication.

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction concerning Site No. 27, claiming ownership and possession under a registered sale deed executed by Smt. Devamma through her General Power of Attorney holder, followed by a rectification deed and municipal records.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, principally because the General Power of Attorney had not been produced.

In appeal, the plaintiff relied on a decree in an earlier suit, O.S. No. 868/2012, which she said had confirmed her possession against the vendors from whom defendant No. 1 later claimed title; she also sought to produce the General Power of Attorney as additional evidence.

Defendant No. 1 disputed the effect of the earlier decree and relied on his asserted chain of title and registered sale deed.

1. Whether the General Power of Attorney, produced for the first time in appeal, should be considered as additional evidence because it bears on the vendor’s authority and the plaintiff’s claim.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s dismissal should be set aside and the suit remanded so the additional evidence and the legal effect of the decree in O.S. No. 868/2012 can be considered after both parties have had an opportunity to adduce evidence.

The Court acted under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning the production of additional evidence in appeal, and Order XLI Rule 23A, under which an appellate court may set aside a decree and remand a suit for retrial in appropriate circumstances.

Where additional evidence goes to a central issue and has not been evaluated by the Trial Court, the opposing party should have a fair opportunity to test it and to lead rebuttal evidence.

The General Power of Attorney was material because the Trial Court had dismissed the suit in part for its non-production, and it directly concerned the authority of the plaintiff’s vendor.

The Court also found that the full legal effect of the decree in O.S. No. 868/2012 had not been comprehensively evaluated with evidence in the present suit.

Because defendant No. 1 disputed that decree’s effect and would need an opportunity to cross-examine and present rebuttal evidence, the Court concluded that deciding the appeal on the existing record would prejudice procedural fairness; remand was therefore appropriate.

The Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and decree, directed the additional-evidence application and General Power of Attorney to be transmitted to the Trial Court, and remanded the suit for fresh consideration.

The parties’ contentions were left open, with directions to provide the plaintiff an opportunity to adduce further evidence and defendant No. 1 an opportunity to cross-examine and lead rebuttal evidence.