GOVT. OF KARNATAKA AND ANRversusK.C.SUBRAMANYA AND ORS

                        [2013] 10 S.C.R. 144


A               GOVT. OF KARNATAKA AND ANR
                                  v.
                   K.C.SUBRAMANYA AND ORS
                  (Civil Appeal No 10195 of 2013)
                      SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
B
                   [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND
                 PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

         Code of Civil Procedure, 19.08 - Or.XL/, r.27(1)(aa) -
C Conditions precedent before allowing a party to adduce
  additional evidence at the stage of appeal - Held: A party can
  seek liberty to produce additional evidence at the appellate
  stage, but the same can be permitted only if the evidence
  sought to be produced could not be produced at the stage of
D trial in spite of exercise of due diligence and that the evidence
  could not be produced as it was not within knowledge of the
  party and hence was fit to be produced by the appellant before
  the appellate forum - In the instant matter, the appellants are
  a public authority and sought to produce a road map which,
E it is unbelievable, was not within their knowledge indicating a
  road to the disputed land - Therefore, rejection of the
  application of the appellants to rely on the said map rightly
  not entertained at the stage of first appeal.

F       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    10195 of 2013.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 26.07.2011 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 1765 of 2005.

G       V.N. Raghupathy, S.N. Bhat, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, G.V.
    Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma, Anajana Chandrashekar, Girish
    Ananthamurthy, Vaijayanthi Girish for the appearing parties.

        The following order of the Court was delivered

H                                144
   GOVT. OF KARNATAKA v. K.C.SUBRAMANYA                    145


                           ORDER                                   A

    1. Leave granted.

    2. Application for impleadment is allowed.

    3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order         B
dated 26.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in
RFA No. 1765/2005, we have noticed that the judgment and
decree was passed in favour of the respondents by the Trial
Court which had also been upheld by the High Court.
                                                                   c
     4. However, counsel fo~ the appellants submitted that the
appellants have sought permission of the High Court at the
stage of first appeal seeking liberty to adduce additional
evidence which is a map of the area indicating that the disputed.
land is a public road and in view of Order XU Rule 27(1) (aa),
the appellants were entitled to adduce such additional evidence D
at the appellate stage.

    5. However, we do not feel impressed with this argument
and deem it fit to reject it in view of Order XU Rule 27(1) (aa)
which clearly states as follows:                                   E

    (a) ........ .

    (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence,
    establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due
    diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or       F
    could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced
    by him at the time when the decree appealed against was
    passed, or

    (b) ......... .                                                G
     6. On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously clear
that the party can seek liberty to produce additional evidence
at the appellate stage, but the same can be permitted only "if
the evidence sought to be produced could not be produced at        H
    146      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   the stage of trial in spite of exercise of due diligence and that
    the evidence could not be produced as it was not within his
    knowledge and hence was fit to be produced by the appellant
    before the appellate forum.

       7. It is thus clear that there are conditions precedent before
8
  allowing a party to adduce additional evidence at the stage of
  appeal, which specificcally incorporates conditions to the effect
  that the party in spite of due diligence could not produce the
  evidence and the same cannot be allowed to be done at his
C leisure or sweet will.

       8. In the instant matter, the appellants are a public authority
  and has sought to produce a road map which, it is unbelievable,
  was not within the knowledge of the appellants indieating a road
  to the disputed land. Therefore, the rejection of the application
D of the appellants to rely on the said map has rightly not been
  entertained at the stage of first appeal. The impugned order
  thus do not suffer from legal infirmity so as to interfere with the
  same.

E         9. However, we deem it appropriate to observe further that
    the appellants are Governme'nt of Karnataka and, therefore, if
    it is of the view that the land in question requires construction
    of a public road, no one can stop it from acquiring the land in
    question. In. fact, the appellants appear to have taken steps
F   earlier for acquisition of the land in question but wha.t prevailed
    upon- the appellants to drop the acquisition proceeding is not
    quite clear.

       . 10. The present appeal arises out of a simple suit of
  declaration and confirmation of possession which was decreecj
G in favour of the respondents and was upheld by the High Court.
  The decree having been passed after contest, cannot be
  interfered with unless the counsel could prove perversity in the
  finding recorded concurrently by the courts below. It is clear that
  the appellants have miserably failed to do so and, therefore, it
H cannot bank upon the equity and good conscience of this Court ·.
   GOVT. OF KARNATAKA v. K.C.SUBRAMANYA                      147


beseeching interference with a contested decree passed in            A
favour of the respondents.

     11. It is no doubt true that the courts at times can exercise
its due diligence for taking the relevant aspects of the matter
while exercising its discretion for application of equity and good
                                                                     8
conscience. But, insofar as the appellants in this appeal are
concerned, that also is lacking as we fail to comprehend as to
why the appellants dropped the acquisition proceeding if it
thought that the land in question was so essential and viable
for using it as a public road.
                                                                     c
       12. However, in spite of the aforesaid observations, the
appellants obviously would be free to take recourse to any
provision in accordance with law to declare the land in question
as a public land of the appellant but insofar as this appeal is
concerned, we cannot entertain it as we are not convinced that
                   I
                                                                     D
it is a fit case where we should interfere with the decree based
on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

     13. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.

B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.