In a case, the Supreme Court addressed a procedural oversight by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had dismissed a second appeal without considering an application for additional evidence. This case, Jatinder Singh and Another (Minor Through Mother) v. Mehar Singh and Others, underscores the importance of procedural diligence in the judicial process.
Facts of the Case
The appellants, Jatinder Singh and another minor represented through their mother, filed a suit challenging a sale deed dated May 29, 1989, executed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in favor of respondents Nos. 9 and 10. They also contested a compromise (Exhibit No. Cl) dated April 7, 1986, in a suit titled Ujagar Singh vs. Puran Singh. The trial court, the appellate court, and finally the High Court in the second appeal dismissed the suit.
However, before the High Court, the appellants had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to admit additional evidence. This evidence included documents such as a certificate of military service, voter list, house tax receipt, payment receipts for agricultural dues, an identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, and a ration card.
Legal Issues
The core legal issue in this case was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal without considering the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. This rule allows the appellate court to admit additional evidence if it is necessary for pronouncing judgment or for any other substantial cause.
Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is a critical provision that ensures justice is served by allowing the introduction of new evidence that was not available during the initial trial. The rule states that additional evidence can be admitted if:
The court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted.
The evidence was not available to the party despite exercising due diligence.
The appellate court requires the evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
In this case, the appellants argued that the additional evidence was crucial for a fair adjudication of the matter. The High Court, however, dismissed the second appeal without addressing the application for additional evidence, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court's Findings
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had indeed failed to address the application for additional evidence. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on the grounds that no substantial question of law was presented, without considering whether the additional evidence could potentially alter the outcome of the case.
The Supreme Court emphasized that it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the application for additional evidence on its merits before making a final judgment on the appeal. The failure to do so was a significant procedural lapse.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's oversight was not just a minor procedural error but a substantial one that could affect the delivery of justice. The additional evidence presented by the appellants included crucial documents that could potentially change the outcome of the case. By not considering these documents, the High Court failed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case fully.
Order
In light of this oversight, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case for reconsideration. The High Court was instructed to address the application for additional evidence and decide the second appeal afresh in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court also requested the High Court to expedite the resolution of the second appeal, preferably within six months.
The Supreme Court's order was clear and decisive. It stated:
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
There will be no order as to costs.
The High Court is to decide the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC on its merits.
The High Court is to decide the second appeal afresh in accordance with the law.
The High Court is requested to dispose of the second appeal at an early date, preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.
