O . XLI , R. 27 --- Additional evidence , protection of an appellate sage --- Scope --- Respondent / plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of certain amount along with mark - up -

2023 YLR 2364

O . XLI , R. 27 --- Additional evidence , protection of an appellate sage --- Scope --- Respondent / plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of certain amount along with mark - up --- Suit was contested by the petitioner / defendant --- Trial Court , after recording evidence of the parties , pro and contra , decreed the suit --- Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed appeal and thereafter moved an application under O. XLI , R. 27 , C.P.C. , for production of additional evidence --- Appellant Court dismissed the said application --- Held , that from perusal of record it appeared that the petitioner intended to produce 39 documents , ( the detail of which had been given in the application ) --- Respondent / plaintiff instituted the suit almost 10 years ago --- Contention of the petitioner was that inadvertently these documents could not be produced before learned trial Court at the relevant time --- Admittedly , the case of the petitioner did not fall under O. XLI , R. 27 , C.P.C. , because there was no material on record which suggested that the additional evidence had been available but could not be produced for reasons beyond the control of petitioner --- Petitioner failed to explain that why any step to produce evidence in question was not taken for so many years --- In view of lack of vigilance on the part of the petitioner , it was not a fit case for exercise of powers by the Court in his favour under O. XLI , R. 27 , C.P.C .--- Said provision does not give unfettered discretion to the Court to allow application for additional evidence --- There must be some reasons for allowing said application --- Petitioner failed to satisfy the Court with regard to non - production of said documents at appropriate time.

2023 YLR 2364

O . XLI , R. 27 - Additional evidence at appellate sage -- Scope Order XLI , R. 27 , C.P.C. does not envisage filling up the lucuna left by a party in evidence before Trial Court Additional evidence could not be received to fill - up lacuna or provide for deficiency in the case of a party --- It is not meant to cater the needs of a particular party but is available for exercise by the appellate Court to appropriate cases where need for taking additional evidence appears essential to the Court for just decision of the case - It envisages certain circumstances when additional evidence can be adduced --- Scope of O. XLI , R. 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 --- Said provision does not give unfettered discretion to the Court to allow application for additional evidence --- There must be some reasons for allowing said application -- Discretion of Court should not be exercised in favour of a person who remained indolent for years and such person should suffer consequences of his failure .