By Imperilex Legal
· Gobind Singh & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.
· Supreme Court of India
· 09th March 2026
· J. Vikram Nath & J. Sandeep Mehta
· 2026 INSC 211
Introduction
The Supreme Court on Monday (09-03-2026) delivered an important judgment clarifying introduction of additional evidence at appellate stage stating that when a decree has been passed by Trial Court and challenged via appeal introduction of additional evidence bears little legal significance and would not be allowed to fill the gaps born out in Trial stage.
Facts of the case
Before Hon’ble Trial Court
The Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s) possessed land bearing no. Survey No. 2029, admeasuring 8 Bighas and 10 Biswas, situated in Patwari Halqa No. 51, opposite Baaj Cinema Hall, Murar, Pargana and District Gwalior. On 4th December 1989 officials of respondent(s)-defendant(s) entered and tried to remove the erected fence, two shops of plaintiff and standing crops.
The Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s) being aggrieved of these actions, on 5th December, 1989, filed a Civil Suit No. 55A of 1989 thereby seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the actions of respondent(s)-defendant(s) restraining them from interference.
The assertions were made in the suit by Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s) claiming that disputed property were ancestral property and was in continuous possession for preceding fifty years by their forefathers. The Trial Court passed a decree on 26-03-1996, in favor of Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s), granting requested relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction against respondent(s)-defendant(s).
Before Hon’ble High Court ( First Appeal)
The Respondent(s)-Defendant(s) assailing the Ld. Trial Court decree preferred first appeal under section 96 of CPC,1908 read with Order XLI. During pendency, Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s) moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 whereby requesting to place on record a certified copies of General Land Register, to proof recording of disputed property as private land, maintained by Respondent(s)-Defendant(s).
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal via judgment dated 12-08-2009 on the grounds that decree was obtained on the basis of earlier passed ex-parte decree in which parties were different from current parties. Further, Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s) failed to provide any documentary evidence and relied on adverse possession plea which cannot be consider as adverse possession principle does not work against the properties of State or Union Govt.
Before Hon’ble High Court (Review Petition)
The Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s) aggrieved by the said judgment a review petition was filed primarily focusing on ground that application under Order XLI Rule 27(additional evidence) was not decided before passing the challenged judgment.
The review petition, via judgment dated 15-03-2011, was dismissed along with above mentioned application in addition to cost of Rs.2000/-.
Before Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
I. Legal Issues:
a. Whether High Court’s action of not deciding the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 before final adjudication of the first appeal under section 96 read with Order XLI of CPC, 1908 has caused manifest injustice and miscarriage to the Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s)?
Claims of Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s)
I. The Hon’ble High Court acted contrary to the law for deciding appeal on merits rather than deciding the application firstly.
II. The ancestors have already a decree in favor of them & against the state passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction which has attained finality.
III. The material on record evidently shows the peaceful and undisputed possession therefore has perfected title in terms of adverse possession.
Defense of Respondent(s)-Defendant(s)
I. The disputed property is situated in land of Morar Cantonment which, in 1953, stands in ownership of Union Govt. upon transfer by State Govt.
II. The previously obtained decree is a ex-parte decree too against the State Govt. which cannot bind Union Govt. as Respondent(s)-Defendant(s) were not impleaded as parties nor afforded opportunity of hearing.
III. The disputed application is without merits as it does not fall within four scopes as laid down in Order XLI Rule 27 CPC therefore rightly rejected by Hon’ble High Court.
Analysis of Supreme Court
A. The bare reading of provision of Order XLI Rule 27 clearly indicates that the application, filed for introducing additional evidence at appellate stage, be allowed only in circumstances expressly enumerated in said provision.
B. The second most important criteria is that Hon’ble Court must be satisfied by the contents of application about fulfilling the criteria of Order XLI Rule 27.
C. The Hon’ble Apex Court has already in Union of India V. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 undertook an exhaustive analysis. The relevant extract is :
“The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself.”
D. The parties do not posses any vested right it is the Hon’ble Court, before which application is placed, possess discretion to either allow the application (recording the reasons) or dismiss it not before applying judicial mind to the contents of application.
E. The High Court rightly dismissed the application as Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s), from the outset, were fully aware that the ex-parte decree relied upon did not had Respondent(s)-Defendant(s) as an impleaded party thus seeking discretion of placing additional evidence at appellate stage when the defects were inherent from the trial stage is impermissible.
F. The Appellant(s)-Plaintiff(s), at the moment, asserted the claim of title derived from their forefathers the burden of proof squarely lies to produce cogent deed.
Judgment
Dismissed the appeal thereby upholding the judgment dated 12-08-2009 (in First Appeal) and 15-03-2011 (in Review Petition).
Key Takeaways
i. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 is discretion and depends upon the satisfaction of the Hon’ble Appellate Court not a matter of right.
ii. The claim of title based on decree where the parties in present are different cannot attain finality.
iii. The pleadings must be foundational from the Hon’ble Trial Court stage otherwise introducing public evidence without relying on it at earlier stage is impermissible in law.
Conclusion
The parties at appellate stage cannot be allowed to introduce wholly unrelated new evidence without satisfaction of Order XLI Rule 27 whereby the reliance was placed on different evidence at earlier stage.