دیوانی مقدمات میں اضافی شہادت

  2023 YLR 1972

Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. envisaged certain circumstances when additional evidence can be adduced.

Keeping in view the said provision of law, it appears that first situation is not attracted because the learned trial Court never refused to admit the said documents in evidence. In second circumstance, the appellate Court may require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The expression “to enable it to pronounce judgment” has been subject to general decision of superior Court wherein it has been held that when appellate Court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to lacunas or defects in the evidence as it stands it may admit additional evidence but a party to the appeal cannot be allowed to produce additional evidence so as to patch-up the weaker parts of its case or fill-up omissions. The scope of order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. is limited as it contemplates very few circumstances or conditions in which the appellate Court may allow a party to the appeal to produce additional documentary evidence. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner does not fall under Rule 27 C.P.C., because there is no material on record which suggests that the said documents have been available but could not be produced for reasons beyond the control of petitioner. Petitioner failed to satisfy the Court with regard to non-production of said documents at relevant time.

Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. does not envisage filling-up the lacuna left by a party in evidence before trial Court۔