Introduction:

In LA.APP. 15/2025 titled “Suresh Goel v. Union of India & Anr.” , Mahajan J. disposed of CM APPL. 3908/2025 (Appellant’s application to take additional documents on record) as follows:

“the additional documents are taken on record, but their admissibility and evidentiary value remain open to objection by the Respondents at the time of arguments.”

Respondents were given leave to file an additional reply, and the matter is listed on 15.12.2026. The effect of this order does three things:

• it does not yet hold that the Appellant has satisfied Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, that question is left open;
• it does not direct any mode of proof, no witness has been directed to be examined; and
• it expressly reserves our right to contest both the threshold (should the documents have come in at all) and the mode of proof/weight (even if they are in, what do they prove) at the final hearing. Everything below is aimed at using that reservation to full effect.

In this context the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently decided the principles that govern O. XLI Rule 27 of the CPC  in case titled “Chowdappa vs Hanumantharyappa & Ors.” 2026 INSC 816.

Chowdappa vs Hanumantharyappa & Ors.” 2026 INSC 816; 

The brief facts of the case were that a civil suit for partition and separate possession of properties, which was decreed by Ld. Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, (“Ld. Trial Court”). The judgment of the Ld. Trial Court was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, which dismissed the appeal. Hence, the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal.
The central issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the failure of the Karnataka High Court to consider and dispose of I.A. No. 1/25, the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence before delivering its final judgment vitiated the Impugned Judgment.
A related issue was whether the fact that the application had been listed and “heard” together with the final hearing of the appeal on 04.11.2025 as evidenced by the order of that date recording “Heard. Reserved for orders” amounted to compliance with the Appellate Court’s statutory duty under Order XLI Rule 27, or whether the omission of any adjudication of that application from the final judgment itself constituted, by itself, a jurisdictional error.

Contention of the Parties :

It was contended by the Appellant that the judgment deserved to be set aside as the application to additional documents on records was not heard and decided. The Respondents contended that it is not the case that application was considered, but only that it was not actually disposed off.

Analysis by the Supreme Court:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court captured and summarised the governing principles as follows:

• an Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an application for additional evidence on its merits, and the application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final judgment;
• the application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main appeal on its merits, to determine whether the Court “requires” the documents to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause;
• the Appellate Court must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application, and where production is allowed, it is obligated to record its reasons for admission;
• before undertaking the exercise of evaluating additional evidence, the Appellate Court must first examine the party’s pleadings to ensure that the foundational case set up supports introduction of the proposed evidence;
  and dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error resulting in a severe miscarriage of justice.

Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court:

The judgment reiterates that Order XLI Rule 27 CPC casts a mandatory duty on the Appellate Court to specifically adjudicate an application for additional evidence, and that this duty is not discharged merely by listing and hearing arguments on the application together with the main appeal.

The Court also clarifies that before evaluating whether additional evidence should be admitted, the Appellate Court must first test the application against the foundational pleadings, to ensure that the case as pleaded supports the introduction of the evidence sought to be produced evaluation of the application cannot proceed, or be bypassed, in the abstract.

Importantly, the Court draws a clear distinction between an application being “heard” and an application being “disposed of.” An omnibus recital such as “Heard. Reserved for orders,” followed by a final judgment that is silent on the additional evidence application, does not amount to disposal of that application. The requirement of a specific, reasoned order is not a mere formality it is what converts a hearing into an adjudication.

Finally, the judgment establishes that dismissal of an appeal, or of a connected cross-objection, while a pending Order XLI Rule 27 application remains undecided is not a curable irregularity but a jurisdictional error going to the root of the Appellate Court’s exercise of its power, resulting in a miscarriage of justice that warrants restoration of the appeal for fresh disposal, rather than being remedied by treating the application as impliedly or presumptively rejected.

What was held by the Supreme Court?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeals and set aside the Impugned Judgment dated 16.12.2025. RFA No. 2076 of 2006 was restored, together with the connected Cross-Objection (RFA CROB No. 17 of 2012), and the matter was remanded to the High Court of Karnataka for fresh disposal, with a direction that pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. No specific direction as to costs was recorded.

Is there a vested right to produce additional documents in Appeal?

As general Rule, no, as Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC states that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. Rule 27, however, carves out three narrow exceptions to the general rule:

• Rule 27(1)(a)- the trial court refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted;
• Rule 27(1)(aa)- despite due diligence, the evidence was not within the party’s knowledge, or could not be produced, at the time of the decree; and
• Rule 27(1)(b)- the appellate court itself requires the document to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other “substantial cause.”
• Rule 27(2) then makes it mandatory to record reasons whenever additional evidence is admitted precisely what the Supreme Court in the Chowdappa judgment supplied to us treats as the appellate court’s non-negotiable duty.

The governing theme across various judgments including the very recent Gobind Singh v. Union of India (2026 INSC 211, 09.03.2026) is that this is a discretionary, exceptional jurisdiction, not a second bite at the trial. In Gobind Singh it was held that a party cannot use Rule 27 to “fill gaps in their case by introducing new material at the appellate stage,” and that once trial concludes, a weak evidentiary base cannot be strengthened through subsequent documentary submissions.

On Record” Is Not “Proved”: Rules 28 and 29 

This is the conceptual hinge of the whole note, and it answers your question about how these documents are to be proved. Order XLI Rule 27 only gets a document into the file. Two further, distinct rules govern what happens next:

• Order XLI Rule 28 (Mode of taking additional evidence): “Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court may either take such evidence or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate Court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court.”
• Order XLI Rule 29 (Points to be defined and recorded): “Where additional evidence is directed or allowed to be taken, the Appellate Court shall specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified.

The Supreme Court held explicitly in H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy (Civil Appeal No. 1844 of 2010) that additional evidence cannot be let in “unless and until the procedure under Order XLI Rules 27, 28 and 29” is followed.

How Are They Actually Proved? Oral Evidence, or Otherwise?

In our case specifically, there are exemplar sale deeds sought to be placed on record. A sale deed is a private document. Where its execution is in dispute, Section 67 of the Evidence Act requires proof of execution typically by examining the executant, an attesting witness, the scribe/Registrar, or someone able to identify the signature/handwriting unless the opposite side admits it.

Since the underlying acquisition is still governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 51A of the 1894 Act allows a certified copy of a registered document to be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in it without calling the person who made the statement in it. On its face, this looks like it could let the Appellant’s sale deeds in without any witness at all.

However, it is not a blank cheque it creates only a rebuttable presumption of genuineness, not conclusive proof. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P. (Civil Appeal No. 1247 of 2007, decided 29.11.2013) holds that a Reference Court/High Court “could not have ignored” Section 51A only where authenticity had not been questioned by the other side i.e., once genuineness is put in issue, the presumption is displaced and the Appellant is thrown back on ordinary proof (examining the vendor, vendee or attesting witness).

Do We Get to Cross-Examine, and How Does That Actually Work?

Cross-examination at the appellate stage is not automatic, the High Court sitting in a first appeal does not routinely record evidence the way a trial/reference court does. It only becomes available once the Rule 28 machinery is actually invoked, and there are two routes:

Route A- the Appellate Court itself takes the evidence. In practice this is usually managed by directing the party relying on the document to file the witness’s affidavit of examination-in-chief, with the witness then offered for cross-examination — either at the Bar before the Court, or before a Local/Court Commissioner appointed under Order XXVI CPC who records the deposition and returns it to the Court. If this route is adopted, DMRC has an unqualified right to cross-examine.
Route B- remand to the Reference Court under the second limb of Rule 28. The trial/reference court records examination-in-chief and cross-examination exactly as it would at trial, and certifies the evidence back to the High Court. On return, Order XLI Rule 26 gives every party the right to file a memorandum of objections to any finding, within a period fixed by the Court, before the appeal is finally decided — a second opportunity to attack the exemplar even after it has been ‘proved.’

 

Written By Aaryan Sadanand