Summary and Analysis of Iqbal Ahmed Dead by LRs & Anr vs Abdul Shukoor
1. Heading of the Judgment
Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. vs. Abdul Shukoor (2025 INSC 1027)
Decided on: August 22, 2025
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Topic: The mandatory requirement for an Appellate Court to examine the pleadings of a party before allowing an application to introduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Citation: Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. vs. Abdul Shukoor, (2025) INSC 1027
2. Related Laws and Legal Sections
The judgment interprets and applies the following procedural laws:
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This rule governs the production of additional evidence in an Appellate Court. It allows such evidence only under specific conditions, for instance, if the lower court refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted, or if the evidence is required to pronounce the judgment.
Fundamental Principles of Pleadings: The established legal doctrine that evidence can only be led to support a case that has been specifically pleaded in the plaint or written statement. A party cannot be allowed to set up a new case at the appellate stage through additional evidence.
Precedents:
Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 1103: Held that evidence cannot be led on a factual case not pleaded in the pleadings.
Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148: Reiterated that additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill in omissions in the pleadings or to build a new case.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Origin: An appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka.
Original Case: A suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 20.02.1995 concerning a house property in Bangalore.
Trial Court Outcome: The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs (Iqbal Ahmed), holding that the agreement was genuine and that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
High Court Outcome: The defendant (Abdul Shukoor) filed an appeal. During the appeal, he filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce additional evidence (property documents). The High Court allowed this application, considered the new evidence, and reversed the Trial Court's decree. It dismissed the suit for specific performance and only directed the defendant to refund a sum of ₹1,00,000.
Appeal to Supreme Court: The legal heirs of the original plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision to allow the additional evidence and its subsequent reversal of the decree.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court's decision focused on a critical procedural error made by the High Court.
Part I: The Core Legal Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in allowing the defendant's application to produce additional evidence.
The Plaintiffs' Pleading: In their plaint (Paragraph 9), the plaintiffs had stated that to arrange funds for purchasing the suit property, they had sold their other immovable properties. This was pleaded to establish their financial readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
The Defendant's Pleading: In his written statement (Paragraph 11), the defendant simply stated that he had "no knowledge" of whether the plaintiffs had sold their properties. Crucially, he did not deny the fact or plead that this assertion by the plaintiffs was false.
The Additional Evidence: During the appeal, the defendant filed an application to produce documents like encumbrance certificates and sale deeds to prove that the plaintiffs had never actually sold any properties, thereby attempting to disprove their readiness and willingness.
Part II: The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Decision
The Supreme Court found a fatal flaw in the High Court's approach and set aside its judgment for the following reasons:
Evidence Must Flow from Pleadings: The Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of civil law that "evidence can only be led on the basis of pleadings." A party cannot first lead evidence and then build a case based on it. The case must be set out in the pleadings first.
The Defendant's Pleading Was Deficient: The Court noted that in his written statement, the defendant never specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs' claim about selling their properties was false or concocted. His response was a vague "not within my knowledge." By allowing the defendant to produce evidence to prove a fact he had never pleaded (i.e., that the sale did not happen), the High Court permitted him to fill a gap in his pleadings and make a new case at the appellate stage.
High Court's Error: The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a legal error by allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC without first examining whether the additional evidence was supported by the existing pleadings in the written statement. Since it was not, the evidence was inadmissible.
Precedent Relied Upon: The Court cited judgments like Bachhaj Nahar and Ibrahim Uddin to underline that additional evidence cannot be allowed to remedy the absence of necessary pleadings.
Final Order:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
The case (RFA No.440 of 2000) was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh reconsideration.
The High Court was directed to first re-consider the defendant's application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, this time ensuring it aligns with the principle that evidence must be based on pleadings.
The Supreme Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case itself.
The High Court was requested to expedite the hearing of the old matter, which originated from a suit filed in 1997.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of procedural discipline in civil litigation. It reinforces that appellate courts must be vigilant and ensure that the foundational rule of pleadings is strictly adhered to before admitting any additional evidence, preventing parties from altering their case at a late stage and ensuring a fair trial process.