Public documents essential for adjudication may be admitted as additional evidence in appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

The petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 41 of 2016 after the original suit was decreed in favor of the respondents

During the appellate proceedings, the petitioner filed an application dated 16.06.2017 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) seeking to introduce the certified copy of the R.S. Khatiyan for Plot No. 2209, Khata No. 1010 as additional evidence

The petitioner contended that this document was essential for the adjudication of the suit property and was not filed by either party during the trial

The learned Additional District Judge, 12th, Muzaffarpur, rejected the petition via order dated 14.07.2017, which the petitioner challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous application

1. Whether the rejection of the application for production of additional evidence (R.S. Khatiyan) under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. by the lower appellate court was legally sustainable

2. Whether a public document essential for the complete adjudication of an appeal can be admitted at the appellate stage despite delays

The Court applied the principles of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which governs the production of additional evidence in an Appellate Court

The court emphasized the doctrine that additional evidence may be permitted if the documents are "essential/material" for a "proper and complete adjudication" of the appeal

Furthermore, the court distinguished the nature of the evidence as a "public document" (R.S. Khatiyan), which carries a presumption of authenticity and is vital for land title disputes

The High Court observed that the R.S. Khatiyan pertaining to the suit property is a public document and is highly essential for the court to reach a just and complete decision regarding the appeal

The court noted that while the document was not filed during the trial stage, its relevance to the subject matter (Plot No. 2209, Khata No. 1010) outweighed the procedural delay

The court reasoned that interests of justice are better served by admitting material evidence that clarifies the status of the suit property, provided the other party is compensated for the delay through costs

Consequently, the court found the lower court’s refusal to admit the document as an error hindering proper adjudication

The court allowed the petitioner to submit the certified copy of the R.S. Khatiyan for the suit property, subject to a payment of cost amounting to Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents

The earlier stay on proceedings was vacated, and both parties were directed to cooperate in the trial. The Civil Miscellaneous application was accordingly disposed of