IQBAL AHMED (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.versusABDUL SHUKOOR

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1174 : 2025 INSC 1027

                  Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr.
                                 v.
                           Abdul Shukoor
                      (Civil Appeal No. 10458 of 2010)
                                22 August 2025
                 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
                      Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether it is necessary for the appellate court to
       consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer
       made for leading additional evidence u/Ord. XLI r.27(1) CPC.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27(1) –
       Production of additional evidence in appellate court –
       Consideration of the pleadings of the parties before
       adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence
       u/Ord. XLI r.27(1), by the appellate court – Requirement –
       Decree for specific performance of agreement granted by
       the trial court in favour of the appellant – Appeal by the
       respondent, and during pendency the respondent filed an
       application u/Ord. XLI r.27(1) seeking production of additional
       documentary evidence in support of the appeal – Appellate
       court reversed the decree after taking into consideration the
       additional evidence led by the respondent – Sustainability:
       Held: Judgment passed by the High Court unsustainable in
       law – High Court considered the application u/Ord. XLI r.27(1)
       for leading additional evidence without examining as to whether
       the additional evidence sought to be led was supported by the
       pleadings of the respondent in the written statement while reversing
       the decree – Before undertaking the exercise of considering
       whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence u/Ord. XLI
       r.27(1), it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of
       such party to gather if the case sought to be set up is pleaded
       so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be



* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                           1175

          Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor


     brought on record – In absence of necessary pleadings in that
     regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result
     in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be
     of no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such
     evidence into consideration – Thus, besides the requirements
     prescribed by Ord. XLI r.27(1) being fulfilled, it would also be
     necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of
     the party seeking to lead such additional evidence – It is only
     thereafter on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by
     the provisions of Ord. XLI r.27(1) has been made out that such
     permission can be granted – In absence of such exercise being
     undertaken by the High Court, it committed an error in allowing
     the application moved by the respondent for leading additional
     evidence – Thus, the matter requires re-consideration by the High
     Court afresh – Judgment and order passed by the High Court set
     aside – Proceedings remanded to the High Court. [Paras 7-10]

                             Case Law Cited
     Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 298 : (2001) 7 SCC
     318; Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Others v. State of Gujarat and
     Others, 2024 INSC 801 : [2024] 10 SCR 2227; Bachhaj Nahar v.
     Nilima Mandal and Anr. [2008] 14 SCR 621 : AIR 2009 SC 1103;
     Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. [2012] 8 SCR 35 : (2012)
     8 SCC 148 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872.

                             List of Keywords
     Appellate court; Pleadings; Leading additional evidence;
     Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court; Decree for
     specific performance of agreement; House tax demand register;
     Encumbrance certificate; Certified copy of the sale deed and City
     Survey Endorsement; Remand of the matter.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10458 of 2010
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2008 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA NO. 440 of 2000
1176                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Raghavendra Sri Atsa, Sr. Adv., N.K. Verma, Ms. Anjana
     Chandrashekar.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv., Mohammad Usman Siddiqui,
     Ms. Aisha Siddiqui, B.S. Randawa, Ms. Sakeen Quidwai,
     Mohammad Salman Siddiqui, Aman Anand, Ms. Prabisha Pradeep,
     Neeleshwar Pavani, Ms. Shaurya Mishra, Md. Farman.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

1.   The short issue involved in this Civil Appeal is whether it is necessary
     for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the parties
     before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence
     under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil
     Procedure, 1908?
2.   The appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who are aggrieved
     by the reversal of the decree for specific performance of agreement
     dated 20.02.1995, that was granted by the Trial Court. The Appellate
     Court has reversed the said decree after taking into consideration
     the additional evidence led by the respondent - defendant.
     2.1 It is the case of the appellants - plaintiffs that on 20.02.1995,
         the respondent - defendant entered into an agreement to
         sell his house property for a consideration of ₹10,67,000. An
         amount of ₹2,50,000 was paid on the date of the agreement,
         while further amount of ₹2,50,000 was paid on 30.03.1995. The
         agreement was to be completed within a period of one and a
         half years. As per the said agreement, if the defendant was not
         in a position to deliver vacant possession, the consideration
         payable was to be ₹8,67,000.
     2.2 The plaintiffs on 18.04.1996 issued a notice to the defendant
         calling upon him to execute the sale deed. There was no
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1177

          Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor


           response to this notice. Thereafter on 11.07.1996, a telegraphic
           notice was issued by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereafter
           on 19.07.1996 filed the suit for specific performance of the
           agreement dated 20.02.1995.
     2.3 In the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that they had
         disposed of other immovable properties for purchasing the
         suit property, which they intended to use for their occupation.
         It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were always ready
         and willing to perform their part of the agreement and that the
         balance consideration was available with them.
     2.4 In the written statement filed by the defendant, the case set
         up by the plaintiffs was denied. According to the defendant,
         he had borrowed an amount of ₹1,00,000 for expansion of his
         business from the plaintiff No.1 and that on 18.02.1995, his
         signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. While he
         admitted his signatures at two places on the stamp papers,
         he denied the other signatures. As regards the plaintiffs’ case
         that they had sold their immovable properties for purchasing
         the suit property, the defendant stated that it was not within
         his knowledge that the plaintiffs had done so.
     2.5 The plaintiff No.1 examined himself and two other witnesses.
         The defendant examined himself before the Trial Court.
         On consideration of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court
         held that the plaintiffs had proved that an agreement to sell
         dated 20.02.1995 was entered into by the defendant. It was
         further held that the plaintiffs had proved their readiness and
         willingness. The Trial Court exercised discretion in favour
         of the plaintiffs and after disbelieving the evidence led by
         the defendant, decreed the suit for specific performance on
         19.02.2000.
     2.6 The defendant being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree
         challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 96
         of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”),
         During pendency of the appeal, an application under
         provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code was filed by
         the defendant. He sought to produce additional documentary
1178                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          evidence in support of the appeal. The documents intended
          to be produced were:-
               “1. Certified copy of extract of the house tax demand
               register pertaining to House Property bearing
               No.13, Old. No. 29/30, E No. 6th Street, HKB Road,
               Bangalore 550 001.
               2. Certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate
               pertaining to House Property bearing No.13, Old
               No.29/30, E No. 5th Street, HKB Road, Bangalore
               550 001.
               3. Certified copy of the sale deed dated 22nd day
               of October 1948. E No. 5th Street, HKB Road,
               Bangalore 550 001.
               4. Certified copy of the City Survey Endorsement.”
     2.7 The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The Division
         Bench of the High Court while considering the appeal proceeded
         to hold that in view of the pleadings in paragraph 9 of the
         plaint, wherein the plaintiffs had stated that they had sold the
         immovable properties for purchasing the suit property and that
         the defendant had subsequently got information that no such
         sale had taken place, it was necessary to permit additional
         evidence to be led. After considering the same, the High Court
         was of the view that the agreement dated 20.02.1995 was not
         proved and that the case set up by the plaintiffs was not true.
         On that basis, the High Court reversed the decree for specific
         performance and directed the defendant to return the amount
         of ₹1,00,000 borrowed by him from the plaintiff No.1.
3.   Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, learned Senior Advocate for the
     appellants - plaintiffs submitted that the High Court was not justified
     in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiffs
     had pleaded and proved their readiness and willingness to perform
     their part of the contract in accordance with the agreement dated
     20.02.1995. The Trial Court after examining entire evidence on
     record, rightly held that the agreement dated 20.02.1995 had been
     duly proved and that the High Court erred in reversing this finding.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       1179

          Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor


     The defendant having admitted his signatures on the said agreement,
     it was not permissible for the High Court to have compared the
     signatures and thereafter take a different view from the one taken
     by the Trial Court. The additional evidence sought to be led by the
     defendant was accepted without granting any opportunity to the
     plaintiffs to counter the same. It was further submitted that there was
     considerable delay on the part of the High Court in delivering the
     impugned judgment, after the parties were heard and the judgment
     was reserved. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decisions
     in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 and Ratilal
     Jhaverbhai Parmar and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others,
     2024 INSC 801. It was thus submitted that the Appellate Court had
     erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court.
4.   Per contra, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned Senior Advocate for
     the respondent – defendant supported the impugned judgment.
     According to her, the High Court was justified in reversing the
     finding that the agreement dated 20.02.1995 had been proved. It
     was clear from the deposition of the defendant, who had accepted
     his signatures at three places but had denied the other signatures
     on the document dated 20.02.1995. The High Court was justified
     in undertaking the exercise of comparing the signatures in exercise
     of the power conferred by Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,
     1872 (for short “the Act of 1872”). Since it came to the knowledge
     of the defendant that the plaintiffs had not sold any immovable
     property as pleaded by them, the application seeking permission
     to lead additional evidence under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27
     of the Code had been moved by the defendant. The same was
     rightly allowed by the High Court and after considering the public
     documents obtained from the State authorities, the same were
     taken into consideration. Since the High Court had considered the
     entire evidence in the proper perspective, there was no reason to
     interfere with the impugned judgment. It was, thus, urged that the
     appeal was liable to be dismissed.
5.   Having heard the learned Senior Advocates for the parties and
     having perused the documentary evidence on record, it would be
     first necessary to consider whether the High Court was justified in
     permitting the defendant to lead additional evidence in the appeal
     as this is the principal reason that the decree passed by the Trial
1180                                                     [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


    Court has been reversed by the High Court in view of the additional
    evidence brought on record by the defendant.
    5.1 In paragraph 9 of the plaint, it was specifically pleaded by the
        plaintiffs that they had disposed of their valuable immovable
        properties in order to purchase the suit property, which they
        required for their bona fide use and occupation. In the written
        statement, the defendant in paragraph 11 stated that as regards
        the averments contained in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it was
        not within the knowledge of the defendant that the plaintiffs
        had sold their valuable immovable properties so as to invest
        the return of the same in purchasing the suit property.
    5.2 The plaintiff No.1 in his deposition stated that since he wanted
        to purchase the suit property for his residence and he did not
        own any property in Bengaluru, he had sold a house one month
        prior to the date of the agreement of sale so as to make the
        payment to the defendant. In his cross-examination, he stated
        that about two months prior to 20.02.1995, he was authorised
        by the plaintiff No.2 to sell his property located at Benson
        Town. Some portion of that property was accordingly sold to
        Mr. R. Maqbool for ₹7 lakhs while the remaining portion was
        sold to Mr. Gulzar Ahamed for ₹2.5 lakhs. He further stated
        about the manner in which the proceeds from the sale were
        invested.
    5.3 The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the plaintiff No.1
        and other witnesses, as well as the evidence of the defendant,
        accepted the case of the plaintiffs and granted a decree for
        specific performance.
    5.4 In the grounds raised by the defendant in the appeal filed
        before the High Court, a challenge was raised to the document
        dated 20.02.1995, by stating that it was not an agreement of
        sale, but that the said document had been executed by way of
        security since the defendant had obtained a loan of ₹1,00,000
        from the plaintiff No.1.
    5.5 As stated above, during pendency of the appeal before the High
        Court, the defendant filed the application under the provisions
        of Order XLI Rule 27(1)of the Code. The High Court was of
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        1181

          Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor


           the view that in the light of the pleadings in paragraph 9 of
           the plaint as well as the evidence of the plaintiff No.1, the
           documents in the form of extracts of the house tax demand
           register, encumbrance certificate, certified copy of the sale
           deed and certified copy of the City Survey Endorsement
           were material documents that were required to be taken into
           consideration as additional evidence. It was further stated
           that being public documents, the same ought to be accepted
           under Section 74 of the Act of 1872, being maintained by the
           authorities in discharge of their duties in normal course. For
           these reasons, the High Court was of the view that it was not
           necessary to remand the proceedings to the Trial Court for
           recording additional evidence and that the said documents could
           be considered by it. The decree for specific performance was
           accordingly reversed and instead the defendant was directed
           to return an amount of ₹1,00,000 to the plaintiff No.1.
6.   Considering the averments in paragraph 9 of the plaint and the
     response of the defendant to the said averments in paragraph 11
     of the written statement, it is clear that while the plaintiffs asserted
     that they had sold the immovable properties located at Benson Town
     for arranging the funds to undertake the transaction, the defendant
     stated that he was unaware of this factual aspect.
7.   In the application preferred under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the
     Code, the defendant stated that he got the information that there
     was no such sale by the plaintiffs in the last week of June, 2000.
     After making inquiries in the office of the Sub-Registrar, he got
     such information and obtained certified copies of extracts of said
     documents. It can be seen that the High Court has proceeded to
     consider the application under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of
     the Code without examining as to whether the additional evidence
     sought to be led was supported by the pleadings of the defendant
     in the written statement.
8.   In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering
     whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order
     XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine
     the pleadings of such party to gather if the case sought to be set up
     is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed
1182                                                     [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     to be brought on record. In absence of necessary pleadings in that
     regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result
     in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led,would be of
     no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such evidence
     into consideration. Useful reference in this regard can be made to
     the decisions in Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Anr., AIR
     2009 SC 1103 and Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr.,
     (2012) 8 SCC 148. Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by
     Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be
     necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the
     party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter
     on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions
     of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has been made out that such
     permission can be granted. In absence of such exercise being
     undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the
     view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved
     by the defendant for leading additional evidence.
9.   As we have found that the application for leading additional evidence
     has been considered by the Appellate Court without examining the
     aspect as to whether the additional evidence proposed to be led
     was in consonance with the pleadings of the defendant and whether
     such case had been set up by him coupled with the fact that the
     additional evidence taken on record has weighed with it while
     reversing the decree, the matter requires re-consideration by the
     High Court. Since we find that the matter requires re-consideration
     at the hands of the High Court afresh, we have not gone into the
     aspect of delay in deciding the appeal by the High Court as was
     urged on behalf of the appellants.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find the judgment under challenge to
    be unsustainable in law. The appeal requires to be re-considered
    along with the application filed by the defendant under provisions of
    Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code afresh. Accordingly, the judgment
    and order dated 30.12.2008 passed in RFA No.440 of 2000 is set
    aside. The proceedings are remanded to the High Court to re-consider
    the same afresh in accordance with law. Since the suit was filed in
    1997, we request the High Court to expedite the consideration of
    RFA No.440 of 2000. It is clarified that we have not expressed any
    opinion on the merits of the matter.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1183

             Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor


11. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties
    to bear their own costs.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain