Remand to admit an original disputed document is proper when necessary for complete adjudication.

The respondent, the appellant’s sister, instituted a suit for eviction of the appellant as a licensee in respect of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in the respondent’s favour. The respondent’s title was founded on a gift deed executed by the parties’ father, the admitted original owner of the property.

The appellant challenged the decree before the First Appellate Court, contending that only a certified copy of the gift deed had been produced and exhibited, despite the denial of its validity by the plaintiff’s witness no. 2, an employee of the Registration Office. During the appeal, the respondent produced the original gift deed as additional evidence and filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). The First Appellate Court permitted the parties to adduce additional evidence, granted liberty to amend their pleadings, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The appellant preferred the present appeal against the judgment of remand. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned after the Court found the explanation—that the trial-court papers had subsequently been supplied to counsel—sufficient.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in permitting the original gift deed to be adduced as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC and remanding the suit for further evidence and consideration?

2. Whether the existence of a dispute regarding the admissibility or validity of the gift deed required the appellate court to set aside the trial court’s decree outright rather than order a remand?

3. Whether the appeal disclosed any ground warranting admission under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC?

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC, under which an appellate court may permit additional evidence where such evidence is required by the appellate court to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.

The Court also applied the appellate power to order remand where further evidence and reconsideration are necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute.

The Court further proceeded under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, which permits dismissal of an appeal at the admission stage where no sufficient ground for interference is disclosed.

The Court recognised that the appellant remained entitled to challenge the admissibility and evidentiary value of the original gift deed before the trial court after remand.

The Court held that the original gift deed was the primary document relevant to determining the respondent’s title and was therefore germane to a proper and complete adjudication of the suit.

Its production during the appeal justified the First Appellate Court’s decision to permit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC and to remand the matter so that both parties could adduce evidence and address the document in their pleadings.

The appellant’s objection that the certified copy had been disputed did not require the appellate court to set aside the decree outright, because the dispute could be examined by the trial court on the basis of the original document and the evidence led after remand.

Since the appellant’s rights to contest admissibility and evidentiary value were preserved, no valuable right was prejudiced and no illegality or ground for interference was established.

On merits, it upheld the First Appellate Court’s judgment of remand, holding that the original gift deed could properly be considered as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC and that the parties could contest its admissibility and evidentiary value before the trial court.

The appeal was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, and CAN 2 of 2026 was disposed of accordingly. No order was made as to costs.