Order 41 Rule 27 additional evidence requires due diligence and cannot fill pleading lacunae.

The State of Assam and its PWD officers filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in their pending Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10 April 2023 in Title Suit No. 362/2014.

The applicants sought permission to introduce two departmental letters allegedly authorising the Executive Engineer to rescind the respondent’s contract.

The Trial Court had held that the rescission order dated 26 May 2010 was issued by an unauthorised officer and was therefore illegal and void.

The application was filed after the appeal had been finally heard and had been listed for filing written submissions.

The respondent opposed the application, contending that the documents were neither pleaded nor produced before the Trial Court and were being introduced to cure defects in the applicants’ case.

Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for producing additional documentary evidence at the appellate stage.

Whether the documents, which had not been referred to in the pleadings or produced before the Trial Court, were necessary for deciding the connected first appeal.

Whether the application amounted to an impermissible attempt to fill lacunae or patch up weaknesses in the applicants’ case.

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC, under which additional evidence may be admitted in appeal only where the party establishes that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not be produced before the decree under appeal was passed.

Section 151 CPC preserves the Court’s inherent powers but does not override the statutory conditions governing additional evidence.

The Court reiterated that evidence must be supported by pleadings and that evidence beyond the pleadings is inadmissible.

It also applied the principle that additional evidence cannot be permitted merely to fill lacunae or patch up weak points in a party’s case.

The Court considered State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani, (2001) 10 SCC 649, and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, cited by the applicants, and the authorities relied upon by the respondent, including Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2017) 4 SCC 760, and Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, (2003) 4 SCC 161.

The Court found that the applicants’ written statement contained no pleading regarding the existence or relevance of the two letters sought to be introduced.

Although the authority of the Executive Engineer to issue the rescission order was directly relevant to the dispute, the applicants gave no satisfactory explanation for failing to produce documents allegedly issued by their own departmental authorities for approximately sixteen years.

The Court therefore held that the applicants had not demonstrated due diligence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC.

In the absence of supporting pleadings and a satisfactory explanation for the delay, admitting the documents would effectively permit the applicants to repair deficiencies in their case rather than assist the Court in determining the appeal.

It held that the statutory requirements for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage had not been satisfied, that the documents were unsupported by pleadings, and that their admission would amount to filling lacunae in the applicants’ case.

I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 was accordingly dismissed.