JUDGMENT
Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J.
1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in the instant revision application. It is directed against the order dated 13.12.1982, passed by the lower appellate court refusing the prayer of the petitioner for calling for the file of nine departmental proceedings as prayed for in the prayer portion of the petition.
2. The petitioner was a driver sepoy in B.M.P.X. He was dismissed from service on the charge of having accumulated ten black marks in his service records awarded in six different departmental proceedings conducted against him. The departmental proceeding No. 7 of 1972 was initiated against the petitioner in which the charge included the accumulation of ten black marks in six earlier proceedings. Apart from the proceeding No. 7 of 1972 against dismissal of the petitioner, the other earlier six proceedings in which the petitioner accumulated ten black marks were 11/67, 122/69, 124/69, 129/69, 133/69 and 139/69. The petitioner filed a suit (Title Suit No. 143 of 1973) for a declaration that the said proceedings were illegally drawn up and on adjudication of the same for a declaration that the order of dismissal dated 20.7.1972 was illegal. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an appeal. This appeal was numbered as Title Appeal 78 of 1978.
3. The petitioner filed an application in the lower appellate court with a prayer to call for the files of the nine departmental proceedings as duly numbered in the prayer portion of the petition and contended that the files were relevant for pronouncing the judgment and also in the ends of justice. On perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that no re-joinder was filed there. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the aforesaid title appeal only contended that adducing of additional evidence, as prayed for, was not necessary for the adjudication of the matter in controversy. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the prayer on behalf of the plaintiff was at a very late stage and even the documents, sought to be called for, are not specifically mentioned and according to the learned Government Pleader it was the entire file of the proceedings which was sought to be called for and this was much too vague.
4. Under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure the production of additional evidence at the late stage is permissible only under three conditions-(i) If the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (ii) if the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (iii) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. In these circumstances the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced. Obviously the application filed by the petitioner in the Court of Appeal below fell within the third requirement, i.e., essential for pronouncing judment or for, in the ends of justice.
5. It is well settled that if the lower appellate court, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on the record, feels that the document sought to be produced is essential for pronouncing judgment, it is within the competence of the lower appellate court to take such document as additional evidence at that stage, but not before perusal of the evidence on the record because the satisfaction of the appellate court that the document is needed for pronouncing a judgment will be only on hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record. The appellate court may also permit an additional evidence for any other substantial cause. It is desirable to quote from the case of . Venkatatamiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and Ors.
Apart from this, it is well to remember that the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence ‘to enable it to pronounce judgment’ but also for ‘any other substantial cause1. There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence ‘to enable it to pronounce judgment’, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence ‘for any other substantial cause’ under Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code.
It is easy to see that such requirement of the Court to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence.
In the whole of the impugned order, it is surprising that the court of appeal below has given no reason, whatsoever, to reject plaintiff-petitioner’s application. After mentioning the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Government Pleader, at the end the only finding is as follows:
Thus hearing both sides I do not come to find any substance in the petitioner’s prayer hence the same stands rejected.
Excepting this line in the whole of the order, there is no reason, whatsoever. The order is a non-speaking one. One fails to understand as to on what ground has the court rejected the application.
6. On the facts of the case, I hold that the court of appeal below has acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction and I further hold that if the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice and would also cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it has been made.
7. In the result, the application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the court of appeal below is hereby directed to pass an appropriate fresh order on the petition filed by the plaintiff petitioner, only after the close of the arguments and on perusal of the evidences on the record. If the court feels then that the documents are such as may enable it to pronounce the judgment or even for other substantial cause, it will dispose of the application in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.