The Karnataka High Court ruled that it is impermissible to reject a request to present additional evidence if there was no prior request for such action under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The Court granted a Revision Appeal that sought a permanent injunction concerning the Suit Property. The Court stressed that the First Appellate Court should avoid excessive technicality and not dismiss applications solely on the basis of the absence of a request to introduce additional evidence when evaluating the relevance of documents in the case.

Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that, as a result, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court should be overturned. Instead, the First Appellate Court should be directed to determine whether there are valid reasons to permit the applications filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. Moreover, the First Appellate Court should avoid excessive technicality when reviewing these applications and refrain from rejecting them solely due to the absence of a specific request to introduce additional evidence. The key consideration should be whether these documents are pertinent to the case.

The Appellant approached the Court, requesting a permanent injunction, arguing that the property was acquired in 1956 by the plaintiff's husband and had been lawfully possessed and enjoyed by them. However, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove their possession and subsequently dismissed the lawsuit.

The Court took note that the property had been sold to the vendor of the Plaintiff, and the Appellant did not contest the fact that there was a prior sale deed in favor of the Defendant's father. The Court observed that the Appellate Court, when evaluating the application, did not explicitly address whether these documents were essential or not. Instead, it concluded that since the applications did not include a specific request for permission to introduce additional evidence, there was no basis to consider them. Therefore, the Court determined that there was no need to review these applications.

The Court found that the First Appellate Court made a mistake in its judgment and should have assessed whether those documents were essential for resolving the dispute between the parties. The Court emphasized that the relevance of these documents in addressing the significant matters in the case between the plaintiff and the defendants should have been taken into account.

As a result, the Court granted the Appeal and annulled the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court.

Case: Veeramma v Sri Eshwaraiah, REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1562 OF 2021 (INJ).