(1.) The short issue involved in this Civil Appeal is whether it is necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
(2.) The appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who are aggrieved by the reversal of the decree for specific performance of agreement dtd. 20/2/1995, that was granted by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has reversed the said decree after taking into consideration the additional evidence led by the respondent - defendant.
(3.) Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants - plaintiffs submitted that the High Court was not justified in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiffs had pleaded and proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract in accordance with the agreement dtd. 20/2/1995. The Trial Court after examining entire evidence on record, rightly held that the agreement dtd. 20/2/1995 had been duly proved and that the High Court erred in reversing this finding. The defendant having admitted his signatures on the said agreement, it was not permissible for the High Court to have compared the signatures and thereafter take a different view from the one taken by the Trial Court. The additional evidence sought to be led by the defendant was accepted without granting any opportunity to the plaintiffs to counter the same. It was further submitted that there was considerable delay on the part of the High Court in delivering the impugned judgment, after the parties were heard and the judgment was reserved. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decisions in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 and Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2024 INSC 801. It was thus submitted that the Appellate Court had erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court.