High Court’s Jurisdictional Error: Supreme Court’s Decision on Order 41 Rule 27 in Civil Appeals

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 16, 2019, addressed an important legal issue regarding the application of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case involved two appeals arising from a dispute over property rights and the procedure followed by the High Court in admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by not following established legal precedents and consequently set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

Background of the Case

The dispute began as a property litigation case between the legal representatives of the deceased appellants and respondents. Two separate suits were filed:

• A suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession of a major portion of the disputed property.
• A suit for perpetual injunction concerning the suit property.

The trial court, after hearing both parties, decreed the title suit in favor of the respondents, granting them possession of the property. However, the suit for a perpetual injunction was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants approached the High Court by filing first appeals.

Proceedings Before the High Court

During the pendency of the appeals, both parties sought to introduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC:

• The appellants (defendants) filed IA No.5/2011, seeking permission to submit additional documents.
• The respondents (plaintiffs) filed IA No.428/2011 for admitting additional evidence in support of their claim.

On July 11, 2016, the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents (IA No.428/2011), admitting their documents as additional evidence. However, it failed to pass an order on IA No.5/2011, the application filed by the appellants.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the trial court’s judgment. This led the appellants to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeals while allowing additional evidence selectively, without following the proper legal procedure prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

Arguments by the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court erred in allowing the respondents’ application for additional evidence while ignoring their own application.
• As per established legal principles, applications under Order 41 Rule 27 should not be decided separately but should be considered along with the merits of the main appeal.
• The High Court’s selective admission of evidence resulted in a violation of natural justice.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The High Court was within its discretion to allow additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27.
• The documents submitted by the respondents were crucial for deciding the case, while those submitted by the appellants were not.
• The appeals had no merit, and the trial court’s judgment was rightly upheld.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by deciding the respondents’ application for additional evidence separately while failing to address the appellants’ application.

Quoting from its earlier rulings, the Court noted:

“The question as to how the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code in the appeal should be decided by the Appellate Court remains no more res integra and stands decided by the three decisions of this Court in North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by L.Rs., (2008) 8 SCC 511, Shalimar Chemical Works Limited vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 423, and Corporation of Madras & Anr. vs. M. Parthasarathy & Ors., 2018 (9) SCC 445.”

The Court emphasized that applications for additional evidence in an appeal must be considered along with the main appeal. It further held:

“The High Court, while deciding the application (428/2011) filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, did not notice the law laid down in the aforementioned three decisions and proceeded to decide the application/appeals and thus committed a jurisdictional error.”

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The Supreme Court established the following legal principles:

• Order 41 Rule 27 applications must be considered along with the main appeal: Additional evidence should not be allowed in isolation but should be assessed as part of the appeal proceedings.
• Selective admission of evidence violates principles of natural justice: If additional evidence is admitted for one party, the same standard should apply to the other party.
• Jurisdictional errors by the High Court can lead to remand: If a High Court does not follow proper legal procedure, the Supreme Court can set aside its decision and remand the case for fresh consideration.

Final Judgment and Remand

The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court’s order and its earlier interim order dated July 11, 2016, which had allowed the respondents’ additional evidence. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh hearing, with instructions to consider both applications for additional evidence together and decide the appeals in accordance with established legal principles.

The Court ruled:

“The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the two first appeals, out of which these appeals arise, afresh including the two applications filed by the parties under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code on their respective merits, keeping in view the law laid down in the above-mentioned three decisions.”

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the importance of following procedural law in appellate proceedings. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has ensured that both parties receive equal treatment under the law, preserving the fundamental principles of natural justice. The judgment serves as an important precedent for cases involving additional evidence in appeals and the correct application of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

Petitioner Name: G. Shashikala (Died) Through L.Rs..
Respondent Name: G. Kalawati Bai (Died) Through L.R. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, Telangana & Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: G. Shashikala (Died) vs G. Kalawati Bai (Die Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category