Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908

Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. versus Abdul Shukoor, 2025

The Supreme Court held that additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage if it is inconsistent with the pleadings.

Supreme Court of India·25 August 2025

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

25 August 2025

Judges

Justice PS Narasimha ⦁ Justice AS Chandurkar

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from a 1995 agreement to sell a house in Bangalore.
The appellant-plaintiffs claimed they paid substantial advances and sold other properties to arrange funds before filing a suit for specific performance.
The respondent-defendant denied the agreement, stating it was only security for a loan of ₹1,00,000.
In his written statement, the defendant said he had “no knowledge” of the plaintiffs’ claim about selling other properties.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2000.
On appeal, the defendant tried to introduce additional evidence such as house tax records and encumbrance certificates to disprove the plaintiffs’ claim about property sales.
The High Court admitted this evidence, reversed the trial court’s decree, and dismissed the suit without examining if the pleadings supported the new evidence.

Whether additional evidence inconsistent with pleadings can be introduced at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC?
Whether the appellate court must examine the pleadings before allowing additional evidence?
Whether the High Court erred in admitting additional evidence not supported by pleadings?
Whether the defendant raised a new defense at the appellate stage that was not part of the trial proceedings?

The Supreme Court held that additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage if it is inconsistent with the pleadings.
The Court emphasized that appellate courts must first examine the pleadings to determine if the additional evidence supports the case set up by the party.
The High Court erred in admitting evidence not pleaded by the defendant.
The defendant’s claim of “no knowledge” did not equate to raising a defense denying the sale of properties.
The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for additional evidence.

Additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC must be consistent with pleadings.
The appellate court must verify that the pleadings support the evidence before permitting it.
Evidence introduced without support in pleadings should be disallowed.
The High Court’s decision to admit such evidence and reverse the decree was set aside.
The matter was remanded for reconsideration.

The Court reinforced the procedural safeguard that pleadings define the scope of evidence at appellate stages.
Allowing evidence inconsistent with pleadings risks unfair surprise and procedural injustice.
This judgment clarifies that “no knowledge” is not a denial but an absence of information and cannot be treated as a new defense.
The ruling strengthens the principle of fairness and consistency in civil procedure by ensuring parties cannot introduce new cases or defenses late in the appeal process.
By remanding the case, the Supreme Court ensures the High Court re-examines the evidence strictly within the framework of pleadings and procedural law.