Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked At Appellate Stage To Overcome Consequences Of Default Or Circumvent Order Striking Off Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The provision cannot be invoked to overcome the consequence of a party's earlier default or to fill lacuna in its case." Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) cannot be utilized as a device to circumvent an earlier order striking off a party's defence.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur on October 8, 2026, observed that a litigant who has been precluded from presenting their version before a trial court or consumer forum due to their own procedural default cannot indirectly bring that evidence on record at the appellate stage.

The dispute arose out of a consumer complaint concerning the alleged unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 10,37,000 from the savings bank account of the complainant. The appellants, State Bank of India, failed to submit their written version within the statutory period, prompting the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to strike off their evidence, which was subsequently affirmed by the State Commission. Following the final adverse adjudication, the bank filed an appeal before the State Commission alongside an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to introduce cyber cell records, which was rejected by the State Commission and subsequently upheld by a Single Judge in writ jurisdiction.

Whether an appellant whose defence and evidence were struck off by the forum below can invoke Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to introduce evidence at the appellate stage?

Whether the power to admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC can be exercised to fill lacunae or relieve a defaulting litigant of the consequences of their procedural lapses?

Appellate stage cannot be used to indirectly bring on record evidence closed by trial forum

Dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Bench observed that the bank was attempting to bypass its failure to timely file a written version before the consumer forum. The Court noted that the bank's evidence had been properly struck off by the District Commission, an order which attained finality upon being affirmed by the State Commission in revision.

The Court emphasized that entertaining an application under Order 41 Rule 27 under such circumstances would defeat the purpose of previous binding procedural orders. The Bench held that the appellants were precluded from presenting their stand due to their own default and permitting such an application would effectively render the order closing their evidence as otiose.

Order 41 Rule 27 does not grant an unrestricted right to cure procedural defaults

Highlighting the scope and limitations of appellate powers, the Bench reiterated that Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not confer an unfettered right upon litigants to tender fresh evidence in appeal. The jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by statutory pre-conditions requiring the applicant to demonstrate due diligence or lack of prior knowledge.

The Court noted that an appellant must affirmatively demonstrate that the evidence could not have been produced earlier despite the exercise of due diligence. Concluding that neither ground was established, the Court held that the provision cannot be invoked to overcome the consequence of a party's earlier default or to fill lacuna in its case.

No jurisdictional error or patent illegality found in Single Judge's dismissal

The Bench further observed that the document sought to be relied upon, an acknowledgement issued by the cyber cell, was already part of the record before the State Commission. The Court noted that the State Commission would consider the available record on its own merits during final disposal of the appeal.

The Court concluded that the Single Judge had rightly declined to interfere with the State Commission's rejection of the application, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order.

Upholding the judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal as bereft of merit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, and clarified that its observations would not influence the final adjudication of the pending appeal before the State Commission.

Date of Decision: October 8, 2026