The powers vested in the High Court under section 115 of the CPC are to be exercised in accordance with the parameters described in clauses ( a ) to ( c ) ibid . The revisional powers are meant for correcting errors made by the subordinate courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction . Ordinarily , erroneous decisions of fact are not revisable , except in cases where the decision is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and is so perverse that grave injustice would result therefrom .
Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC empowers the appellate Court to allow additional evidence to be adduced , whether oral or documentary , after the recording of reasons . This power is circumscribed by three eventualities described in clauses ( a ) to ( c ) i.c. if the court , from whose decree the appeal has been preferred , has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; the appellate court , on being satisfied that the additional evidence was available but could not be produced before the trial court for reasons beyond the control of the party seeking its production ; or the appellate court itself requires any such evidence so as to enable it to pronounce a judgment . Rule 28 of Order XLI describes the procedure for taking additional evidence and provides that the appellate court may either take such evidence or direct the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred , or any other subordinate court , to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the appellate court . Rule 29 of Order XLI further provides that where additional evidence is directed or allowed to be taken , the appellate court shall specify the points to which evidence is to be confined and record in its proceedings the points so specified . It would also be relevant to refer to Rule 23 of Order XLI of CPC which describes the mode and conditions for remanding of a case by the appellate court . Rule 27 of Order XLI explicitly refers to an appellate court but by now it is well settled that in exceptional cases the power can also be exercised by the revisional court .
A larger Bench of Supreme Court has held that , ordinarily , at the stage of civil revision there is no question of recording additional evidence , but there may be exceptional cases where , in the interest of justice and if so required by the court to enable it to adjudicate on the matter , the court may order that such additional evidence should be recorded.
In exceptional cases depending on the facts and circumstances , a court exercising revisional jurisdiction may record clarificatory statement or admit evidence in any other form , in order to determine whether the lower court had acted illegally or with material irregularity , so as to attract clause ( c ) of section 115 ( 1 ) of the CPC.3 Another larger Bench of this Court has held that where in a case falling under section 115 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the CPC , it has been established that the appellate court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity then the scope of additional evidence is not excluded . Additional evidence can , therefore , be admitted in exceptional cases and to rectify the error where the court had acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction , and justifiably fell within the four corners of the power vested in the High Court under section 115 of the CPC.
The power under order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC is not intended to be exercised to fill up lacunas , or to make up any deficiency in the case , nor to provide an opportunity to the party raise a new plea . The power essentially has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly and not to facilitate an indolent litigant . The court , before exercising its jurisdiction of allowing the recording of additional evidence , must be satisfied that the document sought to be adduced in evidence is not of the nature that could be easily fabricated , tampered or manufactured .
"C.P.1692-L/2022 Shamshad Bibi v. Riasat Ali, etc Mr. Justice Athar Minallah25-05-2023"
0 comments:
Post a Comment