In the first place, the documents sought to be filed by the respondent, namely, notifications issued under the Act were relevant and also necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in the suit/appeal. Second, these documents did not require any proof being public documents in nature. Third, the respondent had already made reference of these documents and laid foundation in the pleadings and lastly, the first Appellate Court has jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code to allow the parties to file additional evidence, if such documents are required to decide the suit/appeal provided satisfactory explanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in the suit and why they are filed in appeal. The respondent, in this case, did give the explanation, which found acceptance to the High Court and, in our opinion, rightly. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and find no merit in the appeals. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed. .....Sri Y.P. Sudhanva Reddy =VS= Karnataka Milk Federation, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 44] ....View Full Judgment

Production of Additional Evidence–
This is an exclusionary provision restricting the production of additional evidence with the exceptions as mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of rule 27 (1). In the facts of the instant case, in the absence of any order of the appellate Court requiring production of any evidence, any party may, by permission of the appellate Court, produce the deed in question "for any other substantial cause", as provided in Rule 27 (1) (b). .....Harunur Rashid & others =VS= Mosammat Yarun Nissa & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 385] ....View Full Judgment