Additional Evidence cannot be produced at Appellate Stage without fulfilling any of the conditions mentioned in Or.41 R 27; SC [Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court has held in a recent judgment that parties to a civil litigation are not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court, but for the three situations contemplated in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The Supreme Court also held that it was improper for the High Court in exercise of. The Supreme Court also held that it was improper for the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with an order of the lower appellate court allowing an application for additional evidence at the interim stage when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the appellate court. Examining the scope of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the matters of acceptance of additional evidence by the lower appellate court, the Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in Gurdev Singh and others v. Mehnga Ram and another, 6 SCC 507 wherein it was held that the approach of the High Court in revision at that interim stage when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the learned Additional District Judge was not justified and the High Court should not have interfered with the order which was within the jurisdiction of the appellate court. But at this interim stage, the High Court should not have felt itself convinced that the order was without jurisdiction.” Keeping in view the law laid down by the Court regarding exercise of revisional powers in the matter of allowing the application for additional evidence, when appeal is pending before the lower appellate court, the Apex Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court but in order to do complete justice between the parties, proceeded to direct the first appellate court to decide the application for additional evidence afresh in the light of observations made by the Court regarding principles on which such an application can be allowed or rejected.
Discover Related

Madras HC upholds one-year jail for Jawahirullah in FCRA case

Recording court proceedings amounts to interfering with administration of justice: Kerala High Court
![Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [March 01 to 09]](/static/images/error.jpg)