No Additional Evidence In Appeal Without Pleadings to Support It: Supreme Court Lays Down Procedural Discipline for Appellate Courts

"Appellate Court Must First Look at What Was Pleaded, Before Allowing What Wasn't": In a decisive ruling on August 22, 2025, the Supreme Court overturned a High Court judgment that had reversed a trial court decree for specific performance. The Court emphatically held that "before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence... it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party", thereby reinforcing procedural discipline in appellate adjudication.

The judgment is significant for its firm stance that Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used as a backdoor to introduce evidence that is not rooted in a party’s original case. The Court sent back the appeal for fresh consideration, stressing that evidence without pleadings is legally meaningless.

The dispute originated from an alleged agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995, wherein the respondent-defendant had purportedly agreed to sell his house property to the plaintiffs for ₹10,67,000. The plaintiffs claimed to have paid ₹5,00,000 in advance and later issued notices seeking execution of the sale deed. Receiving no response, they filed a suit for specific performance.

The defendant denied the agreement, asserting instead that he had taken a loan of ₹1,00,000 from Plaintiff No.1, and that his signature on blank stamp papers had been misused to fabricate an agreement. The Trial Court disbelieved the defendant's version, accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence of readiness and willingness, and decreed the suit in 2000.

The defendant appealed to the High Court, and crucially, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC, seeking to introduce four documents as additional evidence — including a house tax record and encumbrance certificate — to disprove the plaintiffs' claim that they had sold their own property to buy the suit property.

When Can Additional Evidence Be Allowed at the Appellate Stage?

The central question was whether the High Court could permit additional evidence when the defendant had not pleaded the relevant facts in his written statement.

The Supreme Court unambiguously held:

"In absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise..."

This observation was rooted in well-established precedent. Referring to Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, AIR 2009 SC 1103, and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, the Court reiterated:

"Besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1)... it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence."

The defendant’s written statement merely stated that it was "not within his knowledge" whether the plaintiffs had sold their property, offering no affirmative defense or allegation to necessitate the production of rebutting evidence. Yet, the High Court admitted public documents to discredit the plaintiffs' version and reversed the decree — an act the Supreme Court found procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court: "has proceeded to consider the application under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code without examining as to whether the additional evidence sought to be led was supported by the pleadings..."

Further, it observed: "Evidence, if led, would be of no consequence as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration", if it does not emanate from the case pleaded by the party.

The High Court had also chosen to compare signatures on the disputed agreement, relying on Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, despite the Trial Court having accepted the agreement’s validity and the defendant admitting some signatures. The Supreme Court disapproved of this approach, implying it amounted to a reappreciation of primary evidence without procedural justification.

Since the High Court’s reversal of the trial court decree was based almost entirely on inadmissible additional evidence, the Supreme Court found that the judgment was fatally flawed.

"The judgment under challenge [is] unsustainable in law. The appeal requires to be re-considered along with the application filed by the defendant under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code afresh."

Accordingly, it set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

This judgment reasserts a foundational principle of civil litigation — pleadings are the bedrock of any judicial determination. The Court has made it clear that appellate courts cannot permit parties to “fish” for new evidence during appeal without having first laid a factual foundation in their pleadings.

In the words of the Court: “Permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise... if the case is not pleaded.”

The ruling provides critical guidance to trial and appellate courts, ensuring that the integrity of pleadings and fairness of procedure remain intact.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2025