UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHIVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.No.1/2022 is an application seeking production of additional documents. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MFA No.2193/2018 submits that he seeks to produce the case diary of the accident as well as the case sheet of the deceased Nanjundaswamy.

(2.) Although, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants has not filed any objection, she submits that these documents are unnecessary for the purposes of deciding the present appeals. Learned counsel further submits that the Impugned Award has already been passed based on the detailed examination of not only the FIR but the charge sheet, and Ex.R2 placed on record by the appellant/Insurance Company is the copy of the case diary. Thus, these documents are not requisite.

(3.) It is settled law that additional evidence is only required to be adduced when the documents that have been placed on record before the learned Trial Court are not sufficient for the Appellate Court in reaching its decision. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another,(2012) 8 SCC 148. has held that the power under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC is an exception and not a rule, and additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up lacunae or to improve a party's case. It has been categorically held that where the evidence on record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, no additional evidence can be allowed. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract below: