K. Venkataramiah V. A. Seetarama Reddy

 Code of Civil Procedure

A Five Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court in K. Venkataramiah V. A. Seetarama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526, considering the said provisions, held as under:-

“........The Appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for ‘any other substantial cause.’ There may well be cases where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the set of the record as it is and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence ‘to enable it to pronounce judgment’, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. It is easy to see that such requirement of the Court to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence. Thus, it made it clear that the object of the said provision is to ask a party to adduce additional evidence.”

The Court further made it clear that though the provisions provide for recording the reasons for accepting or rejecting the application under the provisions but it is not mandatory.

Code of Civil Procedure

O41 R27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.

Please share and follow this blog for more such law related articles.