-
by Admin
08 April 2026 5:56 PM
“When a higher court directs consideration of additional evidence in appeal, the appellate court cannot bypass it and decide the appeal separately” – In a significant judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati set aside the appellate judgment in a decades-long property dispute and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court, citing serious judicial impropriety in ignoring the High Court’s earlier directions to consider an application for additional evidence.
The High Court, through Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, held that the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuzvid, had gravely erred in deciding A.S. No. 20 of 2013 on 24.09.2018, without adjudicating I.A. No. 68 of 2016, an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to introduce additional evidence.
“Appeal Decided Without I.A. Hearing Defies Apex Court Mandate”: High Court Cites Ibrahim Uddin Case
The key issue before the Court was procedural: whether a first appellate court can lawfully ignore a direction from the High Court to consider a pending interlocutory application (I.A.) for additional evidence, and go on to decide the appeal on merits.
The answer from the Bench was a resounding no.
Quoting the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Court reiterated: “Application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage... is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal... If it is disposed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.”
In the present case, the appellants (defendants 1 to 4) had filed I.A. No. 68 of 2016 during the pendency of A.S. No. 20 of 2013, seeking to introduce additional documentary evidence. However, the appellate judge dismissed the I.A. prematurely on 22.04.2016. This led the appellants to approach the composite High Court at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 3017 of 2016, which was allowed on 11.06.2018 with a clear direction:
“The first appellate Court is directed to dispose of I.A. No. 68 of 2016 along with A.S. No. 20 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.”
Despite this, the first appellate court proceeded to dismiss the appeal alone on 24.09.2018, completely bypassing I.A. No. 68 of 2016.
The property dispute originated with O.S. No. 49 of 2004 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, where the plaintiff (Radha Mohana Krishna Rao) sought a declaration of absolute ownership and injunction over agricultural land measuring Ac. 1.70 cents in Survey No. 55/2 at Veeravalli village, Krishna District.
The plaintiff alleged that after a family partition between himself and his two brothers, he was allotted the suit property. He later discovered in 2003 that fabricated sale deeds dated 15.03.1997 had been executed by other family members (defendants) transferring parts of this property without his knowledge. He alleged fraud and sought cancellation of these documents.
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants filed A.S. No. 20 of 2013, which was dismissed, affirming the trial court. This prompted the present second appeal, where the procedural error in handling the I.A. became central.
"Non-Compliance With High Court's Direction Is Fatal to Judgment"
The High Court took serious note of the deliberate non-compliance by the appellate court:
“The learned first appellate Judge has not complied [with] the order passed by the composite High Court... and decided the first appeal alone by keeping aside the I.A. No. 68 of 2016.”
The Court observed that both counsels, including for the plaintiff, had fairly conceded that the matter ought to be remanded for a fresh hearing of both the appeal and the I.A. together.
Accordingly, the High Court ruled:
“The interest of justice requires that the matter has to be remanded back to the first appellate Court... with a direction to give an opportunity to both the parties to submit hearing and dispose of the first appeal along with I.A. No. 68 of 2016 on merits, without influencing by the findings in its earlier judgment.”
“Substantial Questions of Law Need Not Be Answered When Judgment Is Procedurally Invalid”: High Court Exercises Appellate Discretion
The High Court had earlier framed the following substantial questions of law while admitting the second appeal:
Whether courts below were justified in granting declaratory relief based on revenue records and oral partition evidence?
What is the effect of not considering additional evidence in first appeal?
However, the Court clarified that since the first appellate judgment itself was procedurally unsustainable, it need not go into the merits or answer these questions substantively at this stage.
Judgment Set Aside; Appeal and I.A. to Be Decided Together in Two Months
Summing up the procedural irregularity, the High Court held: “The judgment of the first appellate court is not legally sustainable.”
Accordingly, the Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the first appellate court to decide the appeal along with I.A. No. 68 of 2016, on merits, and uninfluenced by prior findings.
A strict time limit of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment was set for final disposal.
Date of Decision: 22nd September 2025
