- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2015 BETWEEN: ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MOGALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI MURALI N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT LEELAMMA W/O ASWATHANARAYANAREDDY R/AT PACHARAMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE NELAVANKI HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. 2. SOWBHAGYA D/O LEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS C/O BYRAREDDY, S/O SIDDAPPA RA/T HODALI VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDERS SEC.100 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2014, PASSED IN RA.NO.122/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.143/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SRINIVASPUR. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014, passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Kolar, in RA.no.122/2011, allowed appeal by confirming judgment and decree dated 15.06.2011 passed by Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Srinivaspur, in OS.no.143/2003, this second appeal is filed. 2. Brief facts as stated are that appellant herein was defendant in O.S.no.143/2003 filed by respondents herein (plaintiffs) seeking maintenance from defendant and for creating charge over properties ('suit properties'). In plaint, it was stated marriage of plaintiff no.1 and defendant was solemnized at Mogilahalli village. And at that time, her parents had given gold ornaments to her and to defendant apart from Rs.10,000/- as dowry. It was stated, defendant was affectionate towards plaintiff no.1 for few years, during which plaintiff no.2 was born. Thereafter his parents and brothers turned hostile towards - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 plaintiff no.1 and instigated defendant to ill-treat her. Thereafter, defendant started ill-treating her and demanding more dowry. 3. She alleged defendant had relationship outside of marriage, with one Susheelamma daughter of Akkemma. And as defendant failed to provide food, clothing and shelter and deserted plaintiffs and threw them out of matrimonial home in last week of June, 2001. Thereafter, sister of plaintiff no.1 took care of them for some time, after which they were residing with mother of plaintiff no.1. When, plaintiff no.1 fell ill, she had to avail financial assistance from her mother and brothers. It was stated defendant later claimed to have married said Susheelamma and residing separately from his three brothers. But they were jointly cultivating ancestral joint family properties. It was stated plaintiffs no.1 and 2 required Rs.1,000/- and 500/- respectively as monthly maintenance. It was stated as she was neither owning property or having any source of income and even after convening panchayat, defendant refused to maintain plaintiffs. Therefore, they filed suit seeking Rs.800/- and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 Rs.400/- respectively, as monthly maintenance and for creating charge over suit properties in respect of defendant's share in ancestral joint family properties. 4. On appearance, defendant filed written statement admitting marriage with plaintiff no.1, but stated that she left him and went to Pachmakalahalli village and did not return even after convening panchayat. He denied receipt of gold or cash as dowry and alleged plaintiff no.1 was having relationship outside of marriage with one Narayanaswamy @ Byrareddy of Hodali village and married him. Thereafter, he married Susheelamma at Mogilahalli village on 26.11.1998. Defendant further alleged plaintiff no.2 was born to plaintiff no.1 from Narayanaswamy, when they were residing at Pachmakalahalli village and Voters list issued by Tahsildar, Srinivaspur, showed name of plaintiff no.1 as wife of Narayanaswamy @ Byrareddy. Under above circumstances, plaintiffs were not his wife and daughter. 5. It was also contended, suit properties were in joint possession with his brothers. Therefore, without - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 effecting partition, relief sought could not be granted. On said grounds, sought dismissal of suit. 6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following issues: (i) Whether the defendant proves that the 1st plaintiff was living in adultery with one Narayanaswamy @ Byrareddy S/o Siddappa of Hodali Village, as his kept mistress, after her marriage with defendant? (ii) Whether the defendant proves that the 2nd plaintiff is not his daughter and further that she is born to 1st plaintiff through Narayanaswamy @ Byrareddy Siddappa of Hodali village? . (iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant subjected 1st plaintiff to physical and mental cruelty as alleged? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant deserted them from his matrimonial house? (v) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to Rs.800/- p.m., and 2nd plaintiff is entitled to Rs.400/- p.m., as maintenance from the defendant? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to have charge created over suit schedule properties in respect of defendants 1/4th share therein? (vii) What relief/s, the parties are entitled to? 7. To substantiate their case, plaintiff no.1 examined herself and three others as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P22. In rebuttal, defendant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 examined himself and three others as DWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits D1 and D12. 8. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 and 2 in negative, issue no.3 to 6 in affirmative, and issue no.7 by decreeing suit, holding plaintiff no.1 entitled to Rs.800/- per month during her lifetime and plaintiff no.2, for Rs.400/- per month until marriage as maintenance from date of suit and directed defendant to deposit same within one month and also ordered creation of charge for said amounts on defendant's 1/4th share in suit properties. 9. Aggrieved, defendant filed R.A.no.122/2011 on various grounds, based on which following points were framed: (i) Whether the Appellant /defendant has made out sufficient grounds to permit him to lead additional evidence as sought in I.A.No.1 & 2? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S. 143/2003 dated 15.06.2011 by the learned Civil Judge, Srinvaspur is, illegal, perverse & capricious which needs interference by this court? iii) What order? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 10. On consideration, first appellate Court answered point no.1 in negative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by allowing appeal in part, confirming award of maintenance to plaintiffs, but setting- aside charge created over suit properties. Aggrieved, defendant filed this appeal. 11. Sri N. Murli, learned counsel for defendant submitted, appeal was against concurrent error in impugned judgment and decrees calling for interference. It was submitted suit was filed claiming maintenance of Rs.800/- per month and Rs.400/- per month by plaintiffs respectively. Though, marriage between plaintiff no.1 and defendant was not in dispute, plaintiff no.1 had left him, married Sri Narayanaswamy @ Byrareddy and begot plaintiff no.2. It was submitted, Ex.D7 - Voters list of Hodali village, showed Narayanaswamy @ Byrareddy as husband of plaintiff no.1. Even PW.4, specifically stated plaintiff no.1 married PW.2. Trial Court also observed plaintiff no.1 was residing in same village as PW.2, but failed to appreciate same in context and erroneously held same would not establish that they resided together. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 12. Even reasoning that Exs.D6 and D7 showed plaintiff no.1 as residing at Hodali would not apply to plaintiff no.2, who was residing at Pachamakalahalli village. It was contended, conclusions drawn by first appellate Court were contrary to material on record thereby rendering its conclusions perverse. On said erroneous conclusion contention about birth of plaintiff no.2 from marriage with Narayanaswamy was negatived. 13. It was further submitted, suggestions made by plaintiffs to DW.2 in cross-examination that PW.2 and plaintiff no.1 were sister-in-law and brother-in-law, there was no illicit relationship between them etc. were denied. Impugned judgment and decree were in ignorance of same. 14. It was further submitted, defendant had filed application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for additional evidence along with Grant order passed by Deputy Tahsildar under Sandhya Suraksha Yojane, Ration Card and Voters list showed name Smt.Neelamma as wife of HS Byrareddy. It was submitted, without proper - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 consideration, application was rejected. Further, as per Ex.D11 - School certificate, date of birth of plaintiff no.2 was 30.05.1990. Therefore, she would be aged 25 years at time of filing of this appeal and disentitled for maintenance. 15. In view of above, substantial questions of law about improper rejection of application for additional evidence and conclusions arrived at ignoring relevant material rendering impugned judgment and decree as perverse, arose for consideration and sought for answering same in favour of appellant and allow appeal. 16. Heard learned counsel for appellant, perused impugned judgment and decree and copies of pleadings and deposition made available by learned counsel for appellant. 17. Respondents are served and unrepresented. 18. This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is by defendant in a suit for maintenance and creation of charge for maintenance amount on suit properties. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 19. Suit is based on plaintiff no.1 claiming to have married defendant and begot plaintiff no.2, and as defendant threw them out of house, failed and neglected to maintain them even when having income from joint cultivation of suit properties with his brothers. 20. On other hand, defendant admitted marriage with plaintiff no.1, but opposed suit claim on ground that suit properties were ancestral joint family properties. It is alleged shortly after marriage plaintiff no.1 left him and married Narayanaswamy @ Byrareddy and begot plaintiff no.2 from him. 21. To substantiate claim, plaintiffs were examined as PWs.1 and 4 and deposed in terms of plaint and got marked genealogical tree as Ex.P.1 and RTC Extracts as Exs.P2 to P22. Plaintiffs also examined PWs.2 and 3, residents of Hodali and Pachmakalahalli villages. While, defendant examined himself as DW.1 and three independent witnesses as DWs.2 to 4 and produced genealogical tree as Exs.D1, wedding invitation card as Ex.D2, Voters list as Exs.D3, D4, D7 and D12, copy of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 Ration card as Ex.D6, Residential certificates as Exs.D8 to 10, School certificate of plaintiff no.2 as Ex.D11. 22. While passing trial Court noted that plaintiff’s suit was earlier decreed and remanded back after defendant filed appeal along with application for additional evidence for production of Exs.D6 to D12. It examined Ex.D6 was Ration card of Narayanswamy @ Byrareddy containing names of his three sons, daughter-in-law and Sowbhagya, but omitted name of plaintiff no.1. Hence it was disbelieved. Even conclusion on Ex.D7 - voters list was similar. It also noted house numbers of plaintiff no.2 and PW.2 were different; while, Exs.D8 to 10 – Residential Certificates were discarded on ground that they were post-lite and without examining authors. In Ex.D11 - Birth Certificate of plaintiff no.2, trial Court noted name of father was Ashwathnarayana Reddy, contradicting defendant’s case. It also noted Ex.D12 - Voters list showed name of Narayanswamy’s wife as Neelamma differed from name of plaintiff no.1 as Leelamma and even house numbers were different. It therefore concluded - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 defendant failed to substantiate his contention even on basis of additional evidence. 23. In appeal, defendant sought to produce additional evidence and filed I.As.no.I and II. On point no.1 regarding additional evidence, it observed documents sought to be produced as additional evidence were Govt. orders, ration cards and Voters list of H.S.Byrareddy. It firstly noted grant order under Sandhya Suraksha Yojane passed by Deputy Tahsildar sought to be relied upon was in favour of Smt.Neelamma W/o Narayanaswamy of Pachmakalahalli village, but there was no material to show that plaintiff no.1 was also known as Neelamma. Secondly, it observed other documents sought to be produced were Ration Card and Voters list of H.S.Byrareddy, but as defendant had already produced Ration Card and Voters list as Exs.D6 and D7, there was no need/justification for allowing I.As.no.I and II. 24. Thereafter, it re-appreciated material on record. Since plaintiffs and defendant relied on respective genealogical tree, it compared same and found in Ex.P1, defendant was shown to have two wives namely - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 Leelamma and Susheelamma, but Ex.D1 showed only name of Susheelamma. It however observed neither party examined authors, but defendant had admitted about his marriage with plaintiff no.1 in his written statement. It however noted that Exs.P2, P7 and P10 – RTCs showed defendants brother Chowdreddy had purchased said properties, while Exs.P3 to 6, P8, P9, P11, P20 and P22 showed Chowdreddy as owner/occupier and his name entered on basis of Pouthi Varasu i.e., as legal heir. Therefore, it concluded that items no. 1 to 19 belonged to Chowdreddy brother of defendant and noting that plaintiffs had failed to produce any material to show interest of defendant in said properties, it held plaintiffs would not be entitled for entry of their names for creating charge on suit properties. 25. While concurring with findings on entitlement for maintenance, on perusal of documents produced by defendants, it observed Exs.D4-Voters list showed Neelamma as wife of Narayanaswamy and resident of house no.59 of Pachmakalahalli village; whereas Exs.D6 and D7 – ration Card and Voters list relied upon to - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 establish plaintiff no.2 as daughter of H.S. Byrareddy Showed plaintiff no.2 resident of Hodali. It further noted Ex.D11 showed plaintiff no.2 as daughter of Ashwathnarayanareddy not only contradicted defendants case, but amounted to admission that plaintiff no.2 was his daughter. 26. Insofar as marriage between plaintiff no.1 and defendant, it noted admission by defendant in cross- examination that their marriage was performed in year 1989 and as per Ex.D11-plaintiff no.2 was born on 30.05.1990 and applying Section 112 of Evidence Act, it drew presumption about plaintiff no.2 being daughter of defendant as she was born during subsistence of marriage. On said findings, it concurred with findings of trial Court insofar as entitlement of maintenance. 27. Though learned counsel for defendant vehemently contended findings were contrary to law and perverse, especially with reference to deposition of DW-2, he admits about marriage with plaintiff no.1 and defendant and states plaintiff no.1 had left defendant and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 residing in Pachmakalahalli, but, DW.2 was not residing in said village or Hodali. 28. DW.1 further deposed, that due to marriage of plaintiff no.1 with Narayanaswamy, defendant became drunkard and immersed in debt. Therefore, his father sold his share in suit properties. He further deposed plaintiff had sufficient means to maintain herself, as she owned 30 sheep and Cows. Said deposition would stretch far beyond pleading and defence setup by defendant. It is settled law, no amount of evidence can be looked into without pleading. 29. In any case, DW.2 admits that plaintiff no.1 was wife of defendant and birth of daughter - Soubhagya to defendant and plaintiff no.1. His reply that he does not know to suggestion that defendant was mentally alright was having sufficient income from cultivation, would render his deposition suspect. In view of contradictions and deposition going far beyond pleadings/ defence setup by defendant, same was rightly discarded. In view of - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 above, there would be no substance in contention about impugned judgment and decree suffering from perversity. 30. Insofar as ground urged about improper rejection of applications for additional evidence by first appellate Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 held: “36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526] , Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008] , Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal [(1975) 3 SCC 698 : AIR 1975 SC 479] and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy [(1979) 2 SCC 601 : AIR 1979 SC 553] .) 37. The appellate court should not ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the court can, in - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. (Vide Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co. [(1978) 2 SCC 493 : AIR 1978 SC 798] ) 38. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. (Vide Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008] .) 39. It is not the business of the appellate court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this Rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava [AIR 1957 SC 912] and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam [AIR 1969 SC 101] .) 40. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause” within the meaning of this Rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 41. The words “for any other substantial cause” must be read with the word “requires” in the beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this Rule will apply e.g. when evidence has been taken by the lower court so imperfectly that the appellate court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment. 42. Whenever the appellate court admits additional evidence it should record its reasons for doing so (sub- rule (2)). It is a salutary provision which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another reason of this requirement is that, where a further appeal lies from the decision, the record of reasons will be useful and necessary for the court of further appeal to see, if the discretion under this Rule has been properly exercised by the court below. The omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect. But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such evidence can be justified under the Rule. 43. The reasons need not be recorded in a separate order provided they are embodied in the judgment of the appellate court. A mere reference to the peculiar circumstances of the case, or mere statement that the evidence is necessary to pronounce judgment, or that the additional evidence is required to be admitted in the interests of justice, or that there is no reason to reject the prayer for the admission of the additional evidence, is not enough compliance with the requirement as to recording of reasons. 44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision-making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. (Vide State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49 : AIR 2004 SC 1794] , State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi [(2008) 11 SCC 205 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1093] , Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity [(2010) 3 SCC 732 : AIR 2010 SC 1285] and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. [(2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904] ) 45. In City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah [(1976) 4 SCC 9 : AIR 1976 SC 2403] , while dealing with the issue, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under : (SCC p. 20, para 28) “28. … We are of the opinion that the High Court should have recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for some substantial reason. And if it found it necessary to admit it, an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to rebut any inference arising from its existence by leading other evidence.” (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Basayya I. Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad [(2008) 3 SCC 120]. 46. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Venkataramiah [AIR 1963 SC 1526] , while dealing with the same issue held : (AIR p. 1529, para 13) “13. It is very much to be desired that the courts of appeal should not overlook the provisions of clause (2) - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 of the Rule and should record their reasons for admitting additional evidence. … The omission to record the reason must therefore be treated as a serious defect. Even so, we are unable to persuade ourselves that this provision is mandatory.” (emphasis added) In the said case, the Court after examining the record of the case came to the conclusion that the appeal was heard for a long time and the application for taking additional evidence on record was filed during the final hearing of the appeal. In such a fact situation, the order allowing such application did not vitiate for want of reasons. 47. Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. 48. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that an application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stage.” - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:10464 RSA No. 514 of 2015 31. It is seen while passing impugned judgment and decree, first appellate Court examined material sought to be produced, its relevancy and need for additional evidence for passing judgment. 32. It noted defendant had earlier filed application for additional evidence and got matter remanded from first appellate Court and after remand got marked Exs.D6 to D12 which included Ex.D6 - ration card of Narayanaswamy and Voters list - Ex.D7. It noted appellant was once again seeking to produce Ration Card and Voters List. Therefore, it held additional evidence as not necessary to pass judgment. Rejection of application for additional evidence after consideration on merits adhering to principles of law would not give rise to substantial question of law. Hence, following ORDER Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV