Justice R.S. Garg ruled that an appellate court cannot admit new evidence on a factual issue like minority of a vendor unless it was pleaded in the written statement and supported by material issues at trial.
In a detailed ruling reinforcing procedural discipline in civil litigation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an appellate court cannot permit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) without first hearing the case on merits or ensuring that the factual foundation for such evidence exists in the pleadings.
The decision came in Mohammad Hanif Qureshi vs Kailashchand (2001 Local Law (CG) 53), delivered on May 9, 2001, by Justice R.S. Garg, who found that the first appellate court had acted contrary to law by allowing the defendants to introduce new evidence regarding the alleged minority of the plaintiff’s vendor, a plea not raised in their written statement during trial.
The case originated from a civil suit filed by Hazi Mohammad Hanif Qureshi before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Sakti, seeking declaration of ownership, possession, and mesne profits. The defendants contested the sale deed in his favor but never pleaded that the vendor was a minor at the time of sale. The trial court dismissed the suit.
In appeal, the defendants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, submitting a birth certificate showing the vendor’s date of birth as July 11, 1960, and claiming it proved minority. The appellate court, without examining the appeal’s merits or recording findings under Rule 27, accepted the new evidence, framed an additional issue, and remanded the case to the trial court for inquiry.
Justice Garg quashed this order, observing that the appellate court failed to follow basic procedural safeguards.
“In absence of a pleading, an issue cannot be cast, and if there is no issue or pleading, any evidence brought on record cannot be looked into,” the Court noted. “Unfortunately, the appellate court lost sight of this principle of law.”
The High Court emphasized that Order 8 CPC obligates defendants to clearly state their defenses and that issues can arise only when material facts are asserted by one party and denied by the other. Since the defendants had not alleged minority in their written statement, the issue could not legally be introduced for the first time on appeal.
Justice Garg also reiterated that additional evidence can be admitted only in limited situations under Order 41 Rule 27(1)—when the trial court wrongly refused to admit evidence, when such evidence was unavailable despite due diligence, or when it is necessary for the appellate court to pronounce judgment. None of these conditions were met.
The High Court thus set aside the impugned order but allowed the defendants liberty to seek amendment of their written statement before the appellate court. The matter was remitted back, with directions that the application for additional evidence and any amendment should be heard together during final arguments and decided on their own merits, uninfluenced by prior orders.
The judgment reaffirms the principle that courts cannot allow litigants to alter the foundation of their case at a later stage, especially when doing so would prejudice the other party or bypass the procedural framework of civil trials.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mohammad Hanif Qureshi vs Kailashchand
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
- Judge: Justice R.S. Garg
- Date of Decision: May 9, 2001
- Citation: 2001 Local Law (CG) 53
- Equivalent Citation: 2002 1 MPHT (Chh) 27
- Case Type: Civil Revision Application No. 262 of 2001
- Subject: Civil Procedure / Additional Evidence
- Acts Referred:
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 8, Order 14 Rule 1, Order 18 Rules 1–2, Order 41 Rule 27(1), Section 115
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 110
- Advocates: Prashant Mishra (for applicant), Shrivastava (for respondents)
- Final Decision: Revision allowed; appellate order set aside
