Supreme Court Remands High Court Order in Property Dispute Over Additional Evidence

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered on December 6, 2021, in the case of Satish Chand Surana v. Raj Kumar Meshram, addressed the issue of whether an appellate court can dismiss a case without considering an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court ruled that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without taking into account the appellant’s application for additional evidence, thereby remanding the case for reconsideration.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Satish Chand Surana, was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 30A/2017 filed before the First Additional District Judge, Balode. The suit sought specific performance of an agreement to sell a property measuring 0.64 hectares located in Village Jagtara, Balode. The defendant, Raj Kumar Meshram, allegedly executed the agreement in favor of the appellant.

The trial court, after examining the case ex-parte, dismissed the suit on the grounds that the appellant failed to establish his claim. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for the submission of additional evidence that he claimed would substantiate his case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the application for additional evidence, prompting the appellant to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Appellant – Satish Chand Surana)

The High Court failed to consider the application for additional evidence, which was crucial to proving the appellant’s claim.
Under Section 107 of CPC, an appellate court has the discretion to allow additional evidence if it is essential for a just decision.
By dismissing the appeal without considering the application under Order XLI Rule 27, the High Court deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to present his case.
The appellate court, as the last court for factual determination, is obligated to consider additional evidence when it is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Arguments by the Respondent (Raj Kumar Meshram)

The appeal was devoid of merit, and the additional evidence sought to be introduced was not significant enough to alter the findings of the trial court.
The appellant had ample opportunity to present all necessary documents before the trial court but failed to do so.
Allowing additional evidence at the appellate stage would amount to giving the appellant a second chance to correct deficiencies in his case.
The High Court exercised its discretion correctly in dismissing the appeal without engaging with the additional evidence request.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court examined the procedural provisions regarding additional evidence in appellate proceedings. The Court emphasized that:

Ordinarily, an appellate court should not go beyond the record of the lower court.
Section 107 of CPC permits an appellate court to take additional evidence under specific circumstances as outlined in Order XLI Rule 27.
Dismissal of an appeal without addressing an application for additional evidence could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
If an appellant furnishes a satisfactory explanation and the additional documents are vital for adjudicating the case, the appellate court must consider them before ruling on the appeal.
Even if the appellate court ultimately rejects the application for additional evidence, it must provide a reasoned order explaining why the evidence is not being admitted.

The Court held:

“It is well-settled that the First Appellate Court is the last court of facts and evidence. If an application for additional evidence is submitted, the court must provide adequate reasoning for either admitting or rejecting the same. Dismissal of an appeal without considering such an application results in a miscarriage of justice.”

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s failure to consider the application for additional evidence amounted to a legal infirmity. It, therefore, set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, instructing the High Court to consider the application under Order XLI Rule 27 before arriving at a final decision.

Key Legal Precedents Considered

State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani (2001) – Held that an appellate court has the power to take additional evidence if it is necessary for the just decision of the case.
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 – Clarified that an application under Order XLI Rule 27 cannot be ignored and must be decided before an appeal is adjudicated.
K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy (1963) AIR 1526 – Stressed that additional evidence should be allowed when it is essential for the ends of justice.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the High Court’s decision, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed the High Court to evaluate the appellant’s application for additional evidence and then proceed to decide the appeal on its merits.

This ruling underscores the obligation of appellate courts to ensure a fair hearing by considering all relevant materials, particularly when an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is pending. The judgment affirms the importance of procedural fairness and reinforces that appellate courts must engage with all relevant legal and factual issues before dismissing an appeal.

Petitioner Name: Satish Chand Surana.
Respondent Name: Raj Kumar Meshram.
Judgment By: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Balode, Chhattisgarh.
Judgment Date: 06-12-2021.

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

Download Judgment: satish-chand-surana-vs-raj-kumar-meshram-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download 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 S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 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