Supreme Court of India

GURDEV SINGH AND ORS.versusMEHNGA RAM AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 693
Decided: 11 July 1997
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: S B MAJMUDARM JAGANNADHA RAO

Holding

The High Court’s revision interfering with the appellate court’s order under Order XLI Rule 27(b) was not justified; such power lies within the appellate court’s jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.

Summary

The appellants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, seeking to admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(b) of the CPC, specifically the examination of a handwriting expert. The Additional District Judge ordered that such evidence be produced. The respondents obtained a revision order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to direct the production of additional evidence and set aside the order. The appellants challenged the High Court’s revision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not interfere at the interim stage, as the power to admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(b) lies within the jurisdiction of the appellate court exercising powers under Section 115 of the CPC. Consequently, the High Court’s revision order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, directing the Additional District Judge to decide the matter on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, in a revision proceeding, can set aside an order of an appellate court made under Section 115 and Order XLI Rule 27(b) of the CPC directing the production of additional evidence.
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence at the interim stage of an appeal.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLI Rule 27(b), s. Section 115

Subjects

appellate jurisdictionadditional evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27(b)revision jurisdictionHigh CourtSupreme CourtCivil ProcedureSection 115

Judgment

                                GURDEV SINGH AND ORS.
-->
                                            v.
                                MEHNGA RAM AND ANR.

                                     JULY 11, 1997

                [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]

 '            Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 115-0rder XLI-Rule
       27(b )-Additional evidence-Power of appellate Cowt-Revision-Power of
       High Coult-Appellate Cowt-Final hearing of appellant's appeal-Applica-
       tion under Order XL! Rule 27(b )-Appellate Court felt that additional
       evidence wqs required to be produced as requested by appellants by way of
       examination of a hand writing expe1t--High Coult in revision held that order
       of appellate Cowt was not sustainable-Appeal before Supreme Cowt--Held
       at the interim stage High Court should not have held that order was without
  ..   jurisdiction-Order of High Cowt set aside-Appellate Court shall decide the
       appeal on merit.

               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4726 of
       1997.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.96 of the Punjab and
       Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 169 of 1996.

            Munilal Verma, Devender Verma and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the
       Appellants.

               P.N. Puri for the Respondents.

               The following Order of the Court was delivered :

               Leave granted.

             We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the
       appellants before us is that in an appeal filed by them before the learned
       Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in an application under Order XLI
       Rule 27(b), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the learned Additional District
       Judge at the final hearir,g of the appeal wrongly felt that additional
       evidence was required to produced as requested by the appellants by way
       of examination of a hand-writing expert. The High Court in the impugned.
                                           693
    694                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A order exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC took the view that the
  order of the Appellate Court could not be sustained. In our view 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
B the order which was within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The
  reason is obvious. The Appellate Court hearing the matter finally could
  exercise jurisdiction one way or the other under Order XLI Rule 27
  specially clause (b). If the order was wrong on merits, it would always b5
                                                                                •
  open for the respondent to challenge the same in accordance with law if
  an occasion arises to carry the matter in Second Appeal after an appellate
C decree is passed. But at this interim stage, the High Court should not have
  felt itself convinced that the order was without jurisdiction..Only on this
  short question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the con-
  troversy involved and on the legality of the contentions advanced by both
  the learned counsel for the parties regarding additional evidence, we allow
D this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court. In the result, the
  Additional District Judge shall now decide the appeal on its own merits.
  We make it clear that the order of the learned Additional District Judge,
  Ferozepur dated 12.12.1995 shall now be complied with, subject to the
  liberty reserved to the respondent as aforesaid.

    T.N.A.                                                   Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "appellate jurisdiction"Sign in to search