P&H HC Upholds Permission For Singapore-Based Plaintiff To Testify And Seek Expert Signature Comparisons In Sale-Deed Appeal

Bhavkaran Singh, through his General Power of Attorney, sued to set aside three sale deeds and related mutations, and sought joint possession and permanent injunction.

The suit was dismissed on 11 July 2019, and his first appeal remained pending.

In the appeal, he filed two applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The appellate court rejected the application to produce statements recorded in a criminal case but allowed the application to examine Bhavkaran Singh and a handwriting and fingerprint expert.

Avtar Singh challenged the order allowing that additional evidence, arguing that it could have been produced at trial and would impermissibly fill gaps in the plaintiff’s case.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC establishes that parties have no general right to produce additional evidence on appeal; such evidence may be admitted only where a statutory condition is met, including where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause, and the court must record its reasons.

In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Supreme Court held that additional evidence is exceptional, should not be used merely to supplement a party’s case or repair remissness, and may be admitted when necessary for the appellate court to pronounce judgment.

The High Court acknowledged that Bhavkaran Singh could have testified at trial and that the suit had been pending for several years.

However, it considered the particular circumstances: he was settled in Singapore; the dispute concerned whether another person had impersonated him in executing the sale deeds; and the trial record included testimony said to support the impersonation claim.

Although an expert had testified at trial, the disputed signatures and thumb impressions had not been compared using the original admitted documents.

The High Court therefore accepted that the plaintiff’s testimony and further expert evidence were material to proper adjudication of the appeal, bringing the case within the appellate court’s power under Rule 27.

It upheld the order dated 7 September 2026 and dismissed the civil revision; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.