Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 833
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Can a High Court, in a second appeal, send a case back to the trial court after allowing additional evidence, or should it direct the first appellate court to consider such evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this procedural question in a property dispute case between Uttaradi Mutt and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. The court clarified the correct procedure for handling additional evidence at the appellate stage, emphasizing the role of the first appellate court. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The dispute revolves around a property claimed by Uttaradi Mutt (the appellant) and contested by Raghavendra Swamy Mutt (the respondent). The case began in the trial court, where the suit filed by Uttaradi Mutt was dismissed. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision, decreeing the suit in part and rejecting the respondent’s applications for additional evidence. The respondent then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court allowed the respondent’s applications for additional evidence and sent the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision. This decision of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1992 | Original suit (O.S. No.193 of 1992) filed in the trial court. |
| 2010 | Suit renumbered as O.S. No.74 of 2010. |
| 18 June 2011 | Trial court dismissed the suit. |
| 2011 | First appeal (R.A. No.14 of 2011) filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Gangawathi. |
| 2014 | First appeal renumbered as R.A. No.124 of 2014 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad. |
| 22 April 2015 | First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and dismissed applications for additional evidence. |
| 2015 | Second appeal (R.S.A. No.100446 of 2015) filed before the High Court of Karnataka. |
| 14 November 2017 | High Court allowed applications for additional evidence and remanded the case to the trial court. |
| 26 September 2018 | Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and restored the appeal to the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court dismissed the original suit filed by the appellant. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision in part, decreeing the suit partially in favor of the appellant, while also dismissing the applications for additional evidence filed by the respondent. The High Court, in the second appeal, overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision regarding the additional evidence and directed the trial court to re-decide the suit after considering the new evidence. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC):
- Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC: This rule deals with the production of additional evidence in appellate courts. It allows the appellate court to admit additional evidence if it is necessary to enable the court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
- Order XLI Rule 23 of CPC: This rule, as amended in Karnataka, allows an appellate court to remand a case if it considers it necessary in the interest of justice.
- Order XLI Rule 23-A of CPC: This rule allows the appellate court to remand a case for retrial if the decree is reversed in appeal and retrial is considered necessary.
- Order XLI Rule 25 of CPC: This rule allows the appellate court to frame issues and refer them for trial to the court whose decree is appealed from.
- Order XLI Rule 28 of CPC: This rule specifies the mode of taking additional evidence, allowing the appellate court to either take the evidence itself or direct a subordinate court to do so.
- Order XLI Rule 29 of CPC: This rule requires the appellate court to specify the points to which additional evidence is to be confined.
The Court also analyzed the Karnataka amendment to Rule 23 of Order XLI of CPC, which expands the power of the appellate court to remand cases beyond those decided on preliminary points.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The High Court should not have interfered with the First Appellate Court’s decision to reject the applications for additional evidence.
- The reasons given by the High Court for allowing additional evidence did not meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
- Even if additional evidence was allowed, the High Court should not have remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The additional evidence was crucial for determining the rights of the parties.
- The First Appellate Court did not properly analyze the additional evidence.
- The High Court was justified in allowing the applications for additional evidence and remanding the case to the trial court under the amended Rule 23 of CPC as applicable to the State of Karnataka.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Interference with First Appellate Court’s Decision | High Court should not have interfered with the First Appellate Court’s discretion to dismiss additional evidence applications. | Appellant |
| The First Appellate Court’s judgment was contrived and did not analyze the additional evidence properly. | Respondent | |
| Admissibility of Additional Evidence | The reasons for allowing additional evidence did not meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. | Appellant |
| The additional evidence was crucial for determining the rights of the parties and should be admitted. | Respondent | |
| Remand to Trial Court | The High Court should not have remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision, even if additional evidence was allowed. | Appellant |
| The High Court was justified in remanding the case to the trial court under the amended Rule 23 of CPC applicable to Karnataka. | Respondent |
Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument that the additional evidence was crucial for determining the rights of the parties and should be admitted, and that the High Court was justified in remanding the case to the trial court under the amended Rule 23 of CPC applicable to Karnataka, was innovative in that it sought to use procedural law to get a fresh hearing of the case.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the three applications for permission to produce additional evidence filed by the respondent under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC before the First Appellate Court.
- Whether, even if there was sufficient reason for allowing the three applications, the High Court was justified in relegating the parties before the trial court and directing the trial court to re-decide the suit by giving its findings in light of the additional evidence.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the applications for additional evidence? | Yes, the High Court was correct in allowing the applications for additional evidence as the documents were official records and public documents, which if proved, could enable the court to pronounce the judgment and do full, complete, and effectual justice to the parties. |
| Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case to the trial court for re-decision? | No, the High Court should not have remanded the case to the trial court. Instead, it should have directed the First Appellate Court to record the additional evidence and submit its findings to the High Court. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. [(2012) 8 SCC 148], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited for the principles governing the admission of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. The Court reiterated that additional evidence can be allowed if it is essential for the court to pronounce judgment and do complete justice.
- H.P. Vedavyasachar Vs. Shivashankara and Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 231], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that when additional evidence is allowed, the appellate court has two options: to record the evidence itself or direct the trial court to do so, but cannot remand the case for fresh disposal.
- Shanti Devi Vs. Daropti Devi [(2006) 13 SCC 775], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reiterate that the power of remand by the appellate court is limited to the provisions of Order XLI Rules 23, 23-A, or 25 of the CPC.
| Authority | Type | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. [(2012) 8 SCC 148], Supreme Court of India | Case Law | Followed for the principles governing the admission of additional evidence. |
| H.P. Vedavyasachar Vs. Shivashankara and Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 231], Supreme Court of India | Case Law | Followed to emphasize that the appellate court cannot remand the case for fresh disposal after allowing additional evidence. |
| Shanti Devi Vs. Daropti Devi [(2006) 13 SCC 775], Supreme Court of India | Case Law | Followed to reiterate the limited power of remand by the appellate court. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court should not have interfered with the First Appellate Court’s decision to reject additional evidence. | Rejected. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to allow additional evidence, stating it was necessary for a just decision. |
| The reasons given by the High Court for allowing additional evidence did not meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. | Rejected. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had correctly applied Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. |
| Even if additional evidence was allowed, the High Court should not have remanded the case to the trial court. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have directed the First Appellate Court to record the additional evidence. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr. [(2012) 8 SCC 148], Supreme Court of India | *Followed* The Court relied on this case to reiterate the principles for admitting additional evidence, emphasizing that such evidence should be allowed if it is essential for a just decision. |
| H.P. Vedavyasachar Vs. Shivashankara and Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 231], Supreme Court of India | *Followed* The Court followed this case to highlight that when additional evidence is allowed, the appellate court cannot remand the case for fresh disposal to the trial court. |
| Shanti Devi Vs. Daropti Devi [(2006) 13 SCC 775], Supreme Court of India | *Followed* The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the appellate court’s power of remand is limited to the provisions of Order XLI Rules 23, 23-A, or 25 of the CPC. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure procedural correctness and to uphold the role of the first appellate court in the judicial process. The Court emphasized that while additional evidence can be crucial for a just decision, the process for admitting and considering such evidence must be in line with the established legal framework. The Court’s reasoning was also driven by the desire to expedite the resolution of a long-pending dispute, which had been ongoing since 1992. The court sought to balance the need for a thorough examination of the evidence with the need for a timely resolution of the matter. The Court’s reasoning was guided by the principles of natural justice and the need to ensure a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Correctness | 40% |
| Role of First Appellate Court | 30% |
| Expediting Resolution | 20% |
| Natural Justice and Fairness | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and procedural rules, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case. This is reflected in the higher percentage assigned to “Law” in the ratio table.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have directed the First Appellate Court to record the additional evidence and submit its findings to the High Court. The Court noted that the High Court had the power to frame issues and refer them to the First Appellate Court for adjudication. The Court also clarified that the First Appellate Court was competent to record evidence as per Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC. The Court also noted that the High Court could have issued directions to the First Appellate Court to determine any question of fact, including the genuineness of the additional evidence.
The Court’s decision was based on the following reasoning:
- The High Court had the power to direct the First Appellate Court to record additional evidence.
- The High Court should have framed the points on which additional evidence was to be taken.
- The First Appellate Court was competent to record evidence under Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC.
- Remanding the case to the trial court was not necessary and would cause further delay.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“In the present case, the High Court has not recorded any special reasons as to why the parties should be relegated before the “trial Court ” to re-decide the suit.”
“The High Court could have issued directions to the First Appellate Court to determine any question of fact including the existence and genuineness of the additional evidence or for that matter, whether the contents of the said documents had been duly proved by the party relying thereon.”
“Considering the chequered history of this litigation and the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1992, and that the writ petition against the order passed by the Superintendent of Land Records is stated to be pending before the High Court, it would be appropriate that the High Court frames the points on which additional evidence could be adduced by the respondent/defendant and call upon the First Appellate Court to record additional evidence and also consider the question of genuineness and authenticity of the additional evidence, including as to whether the contents thereof have been proved by the party relying thereon, and thereafter, to return the evidence to the High Court together with its findings thereon and reasons thereof within the prescribed time.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- When an appellate court allows additional evidence, it should generally direct the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred (the first appellate court) to record the evidence, rather than remanding the case to the trial court.
- The First Appellate Court is competent to record additional evidence as per Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
- The High Court should frame specific points on which additional evidence is to be taken.
- The appellate court must ensure that the additional evidence is properly proved by the party relying on it.
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural correctness and the need to expedite the resolution of long-pending disputes.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to:
- Restore the appeal to its original number.
- Frame points on which additional evidence is allowed to be produced.
- Direct the First Appellate Court to take the additional evidence on record.
- Direct the First Appellate Court to return the evidence to the High Court with its findings and reasons.
- Consider the Second Appeal on the substantial questions of law after receiving the report from the First Appellate Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when an appellate court allows additional evidence, it should generally direct the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred (the first appellate court) to record the evidence, rather than remanding the case to the trial court. This clarifies the procedure to be followed when additional evidence is allowed at the appellate stage and reinforces the role of the first appellate court in the judicial process. This judgment does not change the existing law, but reinforces the correct procedure to be followed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Uttaradi Mutt vs. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt clarifies the procedure for handling additional evidence at the appellate stage. While upholding the High Court’s decision to allow additional evidence, the Supreme Court corrected the procedural error of remanding the case to the trial court. The Court emphasized that the First Appellate Court is competent to record additional evidence and should be directed to do so, thereby ensuring procedural correctness and expediting the resolution of the long-pending dispute.