The appellate process under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is designed not merely as a re-hearing of a case but as a structured examination of the correctness of trial court findings. One recurring question in appellate practice is whether parties can introduce new evidence at the appellate stage, a possibility regulated by Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
The Supreme Court of India, in Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. v. Abdul Shukoor (2025 INSC 1027), addressed this critical issue: Must appellate courts examine pleadings before allowing additional evidence? The Court clarified that pleadings form the bedrock of any litigation, and without them, additional evidence risks being irrelevant, untested, or even inadmissible.
This article explores the judgment in detail, situates it within the broader jurisprudence of Order XLI Rule 27, and examines its implications for appellate practice.
Factual Background
The dispute stemmed from an agreement to sell dated 20 February 1995, whereby the defendant agreed to sell his house for ₹10,67,000. The plaintiffs paid advance sums of ₹2,50,000 twice, with the understanding that the transaction would be completed within 18 months. The plaintiffs claimed readiness and willingness, having even sold immovable properties to arrange funds.
When the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiffs issued notices and eventually filed a suit for specific performance in 1996.
- Trial Court: After recording evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs (2000).
- High Court: On appeal, the defendant sought to introduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, including tax records, encumbrance certificates, and survey endorsements, claiming the plaintiffs had not actually sold their properties as pleaded. The High Court accepted this evidence and reversed the decree, holding that the agreement to sell was not proved.
- Supreme Court: The plaintiffs challenged this reversal, arguing that the High Court erred in admitting additional evidence without considering whether the case for such evidence had been pleaded at all.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellate court must examine the pleadings of the parties before allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC?
- Whether the High Court could permit additional evidence when the defendant had not pleaded the facts to which such evidence related?
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s decree solely on the basis of additional evidence?
- Whether the delay in pronouncing judgment after reserving it affected its validity?
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
1. Centrality of Pleadings
The Court highlighted that pleadings are the foundation of litigation and determine the scope of evidence. A party cannot be allowed to introduce evidence on facts that were never pleaded. Allowing such evidence would be an “unnecessary exercise,” as courts cannot base findings on unpleaded matters.
The Court referred to precedents:
- Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, AIR 2009 SC 1103
- Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148
These decisions reiterate that courts cannot grant relief on matters outside pleadings and that additional evidence must be supported by a pleaded case.
2. High Court’s Error
The High Court admitted public documents as additional evidence to test the plaintiffs’ assertion that they had sold properties to raise funds. However:
- In the written statement, the defendant merely stated he was unaware of such a sale.
- He did not specifically plead that no sale occurred.
Thus, the additional evidence had no foundation in pleadings. The High Court, without examining this requirement, allowed the defendant’s application and reversed the Trial Court’s decree. This, according to the Supreme Court, was impermissible.
3. Consequences of Admitting Unsupported Evidence
Since the High Court relied heavily on additional evidence to disbelieve the plaintiffs and reverse the Trial Court’s decree, its judgment was tainted. The Supreme Court clarified that unless pleadings justify the evidence, appellate courts cannot permit its admission under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
4. Remedy Granted
The Supreme Court held the High Court’s judgment unsustainable in law. It set aside the judgment dated 30.12.2008 in RFA No. 440 of 2000 and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration of both the appeal and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
Importantly, the Court:
- Did not comment on the merits of the dispute.
- Directed the High Court to expedite the matter, given that the suit had been pending since 1997.
Key Legal Principles Established
1. Pleadings First, Evidence Next
Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 cannot be entertained unless the pleadings support the case sought to be made.
2. Appellate Discretion is Limited
The appellate court must not use its discretion to expand litigation beyond the pleadings. Its role is corrective, not creative.
3. Evidence Without Pleadings = No Evidence
Even if formally admitted, such evidence carries no weight. Courts cannot base findings on unpleaded issues.
4. Public Documents Not an Exception
The High Court relied on the fact that the documents were public in nature. The Supreme Court clarified that even public documents cannot bypass the requirement of pleadings.
5. Fair Trial Safeguards
Allowing evidence without notice or opportunity to rebut undermines the adversarial system and violates principles of fairness.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated:
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 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.
Comparative Analysis with Earlier Judgments
- Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2009): Evidence cannot be looked into unless there are pleadings.
- Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012): Laid down the scope of Order XLI Rule 27, emphasising that additional evidence is an exception, not the norm.
- K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy (1963): Appellate court may require additional evidence to pronounce judgment, but such discretion must be exercised cautiously.
The present case builds on these precedents, crystallising a two-step test:
- Does the pleading support the proposed evidence?
- If yes, does the evidence meet the conditions of Order XLI Rule 27?
Only if both answers are affirmative can additional evidence be admitted.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Iqbal Ahmed v. Abdul Shukoor (2025) delivers a vital clarification: Appellate courts must examine pleadings before allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
This ensures that litigation remains tethered to the cases originally set up by the parties and prevents appellate courts from expanding disputes beyond their proper scope. The judgment strengthens procedural integrity in civil litigation while safeguarding fairness to all parties.
For litigants, lawyers, and judges alike, the decision serves as a reminder that in civil litigation, pleadings are not formalities—they are the foundation of justice.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams