Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Not Providing Opportunity to Rebut Additional Evidence in Partition Suit: Akhilesh Singh vs. Lal Babu Singh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 140

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a High Court rely on additional evidence to overturn a trial court’s decree without giving the affected party a chance to respond? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question of procedural fairness in a partition suit. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case, especially when new evidence is introduced at the appellate stage. The judgment was authored by Ashok Bhushan, J.

Case Background

The case originated from a partition suit filed in 1973 by Sheo Prasad Singh and his three sons, seeking a 1/4th share in joint family properties. The plaintiffs and defendants were descendants of a common ancestor, Kalpoo Singh. The plaintiffs represented one branch, while the defendants represented the other three branches. The suit claimed that although there was a disruption in the joint family around 1963, the agricultural land and residential houses remained joint. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on 10 August 1976, declaring their 1/4th share in the properties.

The defendants, Lal Babu Singh & Ors., filed a First Appeal against this decree. During the appeal, they filed multiple applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to introduce additional evidence, including a Sale Deed dated 27 August 1992. The High Court decided to hear these applications during the appeal hearing. On 8 March 2017, the High Court allowed the additional evidence and, relying on it, overturned the trial court’s decree, dismissing the partition suit. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, during the First Appeal, considered multiple applications filed by the defendants under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to admit additional evidence. These applications included a Sale Deed dated 27 August 1992, and other documents that came into existence after the trial court’s decree. The High Court decided to hear these applications at the time of the appeal hearing. On 8 March 2017, the High Court allowed three of the applications, accepting the additional evidence. Simultaneously, the High Court proceeded to hear the appeal and, relying on the newly admitted evidence, overturned the trial court’s decree. The High Court noted that the plaintiff-respondents did not file any counter-affidavits to the applications for additional evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not provide any opportunity to the plaintiff-respondents to rebut the additional evidence or explain the admissions contained in those documents.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court focused on the interpretation and application of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the admission of additional evidence in appellate courts. This rule allows an appellate court to admit additional evidence if it is necessary to enable the court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Sub-rule (2) of Order XLI Rule 27 mandates that the court record reasons for admitting additional evidence. However, the rule is silent on the procedure to be followed after admitting such evidence. The Court also considered Order XLI Rule 2, which states that an appellant cannot raise new grounds not in the memorandum of appeal, except with the court’s leave. The proviso to this rule ensures that if a new ground is allowed, the affected party must have a sufficient opportunity to contest it.

Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if—
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the court shall record a reason for its admission.

Order XLI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

The appellant shall not, except by leave of the court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal; but the appellate court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the court under this rule:
Provided that the Court shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred by not providing an opportunity to the plaintiff-respondents to rebut the additional evidence admitted under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.
• The High Court relied on admissions in the additional evidence without allowing the appellant to explain those admissions.
• The High Court’s reliance on additional evidence without providing an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal vitiated the entire procedure and caused prejudice to the appellant.
• The High Court should have allowed the appellant to explain the admissions in the sale deeds.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The High Court correctly relied on admissions in the additional evidence, as the appellant never objected to the I.A.s or filed counter-affidavits.
• The execution of the sale deeds was never disputed, nor were the statements in those deeds ever contested by the plaintiff-appellant.
• The High Court was correct in dismissing the suit because the additional evidence clearly showed a prior partition in the family.
• Since there were clear admissions in the sale deeds that there was a partition in the family, the suit of the plaintiff for partition was rightly dismissed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court should have granted an opportunity to the plaintiff-appellants, who were respondents in the First Appeal, to lead evidence in rebuttal or to explain the alleged admissions after accepting the additional evidence as prayed by the defendant-appellant in the First Appeal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board Vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 9*: The Supreme Court followed this precedent, emphasizing that when additional evidence is admitted, the other party must be given an opportunity to rebut.
• Shalimar Chemical Works Limited Vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 423*: The Supreme Court reiterated this precedent, holding that an opportunity to rebut must be provided when additional evidence is admitted.
• Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): The Court interpreted this provision to mean that while it allows for the admission of additional evidence, it does not negate the need to provide the other party an opportunity to rebut.
• Order XLI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): The Court relied on the proviso to this rule, which ensures that a party must have a sufficient opportunity to contest a case on a new ground, to support its conclusion that the contesting party must be given an opportunity to rebut additional evidence.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by simultaneously admitting additional evidence and deciding the appeal without giving the plaintiff-appellants an opportunity to rebut or explain the admissions contained in the additional evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision after providing the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. The Court emphasized that when new evidence is introduced at the appellate stage, the affected party must be given a fair chance to respond. The Court was particularly concerned that the High Court had relied on admissions in the additional evidence without giving the appellant an opportunity to explain or rebut those admissions. This procedural lapse was viewed as a significant error, which vitiated the entire judgment of the High Court. The Court’s emphasis on the right to be heard and the importance of procedural fairness in the judicial process weighed heavily in its decision to set aside the High Court’s order.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the High Court’s simultaneous admission of additional evidence and decision on the appeal as a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the High Court should have provided an opportunity to the contesting party to rebut the additional evidence. The Court also considered the fact that the High Court relied on the admissions contained in the sale deeds without allowing the appellant to explain those admissions. The Court also considered the previous judgments on the issue to conclude that the High Court should have provided an opportunity to rebut.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts must provide an opportunity to the contesting party to rebut or explain additional evidence admitted under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.
• Simultaneously admitting additional evidence and deciding the appeal without providing an opportunity to rebut is a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness.
• The mere fact that no counter-affidavit was filed to the application for additional evidence does not negate the need to provide an opportunity to rebut.
• The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the importance of fair procedure and the right to be heard in judicial proceedings.
• This judgment highlights that even if the execution of a document is not denied, the party affected by the statements in the document must be given an opportunity to explain those statements.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the First Appeal afresh after giving the present appellant an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. The High Court was instructed to expedite the process, preferably within six months from the date of production of the judgment before the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when an appellate court admits additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, it must provide an opportunity to the affected party to rebut or explain that evidence. This judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice and fair procedure in appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court has reiterated the established position of law that the appellate court must provide an opportunity to rebut when additional evidence is admitted. This case does not change the position of law but rather affirms the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Singh vs. Lal Babu Singh & Ors. (2018) sets aside the Patna High Court’s order for failing to provide an opportunity to the appellant to rebut additional evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate courts must adhere to principles of natural justice and fair procedure, ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case, especially when new evidence is introduced at the appellate stage. The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in the judicial process and reaffirms the right to be heard.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Order XLI Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Parent Category: Civil Procedure

Child Category: Appellate Procedure

Child Category: Additional Evidence

Child Category: Natural Justice

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Akhilesh Singh vs. Lal Babu Singh case?

A: The main issue is whether an appellate court can rely on additional evidence to overturn a trial court’s decision without giving the affected party an opportunity to rebut or explain that evidence.

Q: What does Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) deal with?

A: Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC deals with the admission of additional evidence in appellate courts. It allows an appellate court to admit additional evidence under certain conditions.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court decided that when an appellate court admits additional evidence, it must provide an opportunity to the other party to rebut or explain that evidence. The Court set aside the High Court’s order for failing to do so.

Q: Why is it important to provide an opportunity to rebut additional evidence?

A: Providing an opportunity to rebut additional evidence is crucial for ensuring procedural fairness and upholding the principles of natural justice. It allows the affected party to present their side of the story and challenge the new evidence.

Q: What happens if an appellate court admits additional evidence but does not provide an opportunity to rebut?

A: If an appellate court admits additional evidence without providing an opportunity to rebut, the judgment is liable to be set aside by a higher court, as was done in this case by the Supreme Court.