High Court Cannot Dismiss Appeal While Ignoring Pending Additional Evidence Application, Supreme Court Holds

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment for disposing of an appeal without adjudicating a pending Order XLI Rule 27 application, terming it a jurisdictional error.

The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in a long-running partition dispute, holding that an appellate court commits a direct jurisdictional error when it dismisses an appeal without dealing with a pending application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria found that the High Court had reserved the matter for orders on 4 November 2025 — with the application pending — and then pronounced its final judgment on 16 December 2025 without either allowing or rejecting the additional evidence application. The Court allowed the civil appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded RFA No. 2076 of 2006 together with the cross-objections for fresh disposal.

The Partition Suit and Its Journey to the Supreme Court

The dispute originates from O.S. No. 485 of 1999, filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, for partition and separate possession of properties described in Plaint Schedules A, B, and C. The suit was later renumbered as O.S. No. 86 of 2006. On 12 September 2006, the Trial Court decreed the suit.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 challenged the decree by filing RFA No. 2076 of 2006 before the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The appellant, who was Defendant No. 1 in the original suit, filed Cross Objection No. 17 of 2012 in the same proceedings. On 16 December 2025, the High Court dismissed both the RFA and the cross-objections, confirming the Trial Court's view.

The appellant — who is Respondent No. 3 in RFA No. 2076 of 2006 — challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court. Delay was condoned and leave was granted.

The Application for Additional Evidence That Was Never Decided

At the heart of the appeal was I.A. No. 1/25, an application filed by the appellant before the High Court for permission to bring on record additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The appellant sought to produce, among other documents, judgments from O.S. 369 of 1997, bank loan discharge documents, and surveyor sketches. The appellant contended these documents exposed an infirmity in the plaintiffs' case.

The sequence of events became decisive. The additional evidence application was filed on 28 October 2025. On 4 November 2025, the matter was listed before the High Court for final hearing together with the application. The High Court on that date passed an order stating “Heard. Reserved for orders.” The final judgment followed on 16 December 2025 — without any ruling on the application.

One of the respondents, C. Muniraju, filed an affidavit placing these facts on record. That affidavit confirmed the sequence: the application was pending, the matter was heard, it was reserved, and the final order came without addressing the application at all.

Counsel for the respondents, Mrs. Prabha Swami, sought time on 15 May 2026 to verify whether the objection raised was factually tenable. The Supreme Court noted that this was therefore not a case where the additional evidence application had not been heard — it was a case where it was heard but never actually disposed of.

What Order XLI Rule 27 Requires of an Appellate Court

The Court set out the statutory framework under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The provision makes clear that parties to an appeal are ordinarily not entitled to produce additional evidence in the appellate court. However, exceptions exist: where the lower court wrongly refused to admit evidence, where the party establishes that despite due diligence the evidence was not available at the time of the decree, or where the appellate court itself requires documents or witnesses to pronounce judgment satisfactorily.

Crucially, the rule requires the appellate court to record reasons whenever it allows additional evidence to be produced.

Senior Counsel Ms. Kiran Suri, appearing for the appellant, placed reliance on a line of Supreme Court decisions to contend that the High Court's conduct violated settled procedural law. The Court summarised the propositions flowing from those decisions:

• An appellate court has a statutory duty to deal with an application for additional evidence on its merits and cannot ignore it while proceeding to pronounce final judgment.
• The application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main appeal 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. If production is allowed, reasons must be recorded.
• Before evaluating the additional evidence, the court must examine the party's pleadings to ensure the foundational case supports the introduction of the proposed evidence.
• Dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.

The decisions relied upon included Jatinder Singh and Another v. Mehar Singh and Others, reported at (2009) 17 SCC 465; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs., (2008) 8 SCC 511; Namdeo v. Tukaram S/o Marotrao Jadhav, Civil Appeal No. 5185 of 2008; Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. and Another v. Abdul Shukoor, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1787; and G. Shashikala (Dead) Thr. LRs v. G. Kalawati Bai (Dead) Thr. LRs and Others, (2019) 15 SCC 201.

Why the High Court's Approach Was Held to Be a Jurisdictional Error

The Court found that the High Court dismissed the cross-objections without referring to, considering, or adjudicating the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The documents sought to be introduced — including judgments from O.S. 369 of 1997, bank loan discharges, and surveyor sketches — were described as crucial to the appellant's case.

The failure was not merely a procedural irregularity. By ignoring the application entirely and sustaining the Trial Court's decree without passing any reasoned order on the application, the High Court denied the appellant any opportunity to rely on those documents in assailing the concurrent findings below. The appellant was, in effect, left without a remedy on the additional evidence question.

The Court held that this directly contravened the principles laid down in the decisions cited above and amounted to a procedural failure resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The High Court had a duty to evaluate the application at the final hearing to determine whether the documents were necessary to pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner. That duty was not discharged.

Order

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 16 December 2025. The civil appeals were allowed. RFA No. 2076 of 2006, together with the cross-objections, was restored to the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, and remanded for fresh disposal. All pending applications, if any, were directed to stand disposed of accordingly. The judgment was delivered on 6 August 2026.