I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 1 GAHC010138722024 2026:GAU-AS:13659 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Civil)/525/2025 in RFA/5/2025 1. The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner and Special Secretary PWD Roads Department, Government of Assam 2. The Chief Engineer PWD Roads Assam Chandmari Guwahati 3 District Kamrup Metro Assam Pin 781003 3. The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department Diburgarh Roads Circle Dibrugarh 4. The Executive Engineer PWD Dibrugarh Rural Roads Division Dibrugarh …..Applicants -Versus- 1. Pradip Kumar Das S/O LT Abhoy Charan Das R/O Fatasil Ambari Nipen Bora Road Guwahati Kamrup Metro Assam Pin 781025 ……Respondent I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 2 For Applicants : Mr. A. Biswas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. N. Alam, Advocate Date of Hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of Judgment : 10.09.2026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Interlocutory application, under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the applicants, namely, State of Assam and 3 others in connection with Regular First Appeal No. 5/2025, praying for allowing the applicant/appellate to bring on record two documents, namely, (i) the letter dated 21.04.2010, issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh, Rural Road Division, addressed to the Chief Engineer, PWD Roads, Assam Chandmari, and (ii) the letter dated 27.04.2010 issued by Chief Engineer, PWD Roads, Assam Chandmari addressed to Executive Engineer PWD Dibrugarh, Rural Road Division by adducing additional evidence at appellate stage. 3. Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants as appellants have preferred the connected Regular First Appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 3 10.04.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No. 2 Kamrup, (Metro) in Title Suit No. 362/2014. 4. He submits that the Trial Court while deciding the issue No. 3 and 4, in the impugned judgment has held that the work order i.e., Exhibit No. 1 for the construction in terms of the contract was issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD and recission order i.e., Exhibit - 8 was found to have been issued by an unauthorized person and accordingly, same was held bad in law. He submits that in view of the observations made by the Trial Court in paragraph No. 12 of the impugned judgment, the letters sought to be brought on record by adducing additional evidence becomes very relevant for consideration of this appeal as the Executive Engineer, PWD was authorized by way of the said letters by the Chief Engineer to rescind the contract. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that since the issue regarding the authority of Executive Engineer, PWD to issue the recission letters (Exhibit-8) was never pleaded by the present respondent as plaintiff in his plaint, the present applicant could not raise the said issue in their written statement neither any issue was framed in that regard by the Trial Court, as such the aforesaid documents could not be filed before the Trial Court. 5. He submits that the said document are very vital for appropriate adjudication of the connected first appeal and the circumstances were such that it could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by the applicants at the time when decree under appeal was passed, as such, he submits that the application filed by the present applicant may be allowed and the applicants may be allowed to bring on record I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 4 the aforesaid documents by adducing the additional evidence at the appellate stage. 6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the applicants has cited the following rulings: i. State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N.Sahani and others reported in 2001 10 SCC 649 ii. Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148) 7. On the other hand, Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants/appellants for adducing additional evidence in appellate stage by the applicants. He submits that in the plaint filed by the present respondent at internal page No.16 of the plaint, a specific prayer was made that the order dated 26.05.2010 issued by the defendant No. 5 is illegal, unfair, null and void and not binding by the plaintiff. However, in the written statement filed against the plaint to the present respondent by the applicants before the Trial Court, there is no pleading that the termination order dated 26.05.2010 was based on the documents ‘X’ and ‘Y’ sought to be introduced belatedly at this appellate stage. 8. He further submits that the Issue No. 3 was very categorical as to whether the defendant illegally rescinded the contract awarded to the plaintiff, however, the present applicants failed to produce the documents sought to be introduced now, before the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that after lapse of almost I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 5 more than 16 years from the date of termination of contract by the said letter dated 26.05.2010 (Exhibit-8), the appellant has come up with concocted documents which are sought to be introduced as documentary evidence at this appellate stage. 9. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no reference of the letters sought to be introduced by way of additional evidence in the Exhibit -8. He submits that had the Exhibit- 8 was issued on the basis of authorization given by the letter 'X' and 'Y', which is sought to be brought on record by as additional evidence, there would have been some reference of said letters in the termination order itself however, it is not there. 10. He submits that the applicants has failed to show that the documents which is sought to be produced by way of additional evidence could not have been produced by them after exercise of due diligence at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. 11. He submits that at this appellate stage after lapse of more than 16 years the aforesaid concocted documents are sought to be introduced only with an intention to patch up the weak points and fill up the lacunae in the case of the applicants. As such, he prays for dismissing the instant Interlocutory Application. 12. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited following rulings i. Satish Kumar Gupta And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 760 I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 6 ii. Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 iii. Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. Vs. Abdul Shukoor (Judgment dated 22.08.2025 Civil Appeal No. 10458/2010) 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on the record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that the termination order (Exhibit-8) dated 26.05.2010 was held to be illegal, void and not binding by the judgment, which has been impugned in the connected RFA No. 5/2025. It also appears that the said RFA was finally heard on 16.07.2026 and on the next day 23.07.2026, the appeal was listed for submission of written gist of arguments by learned counsel for both sides. It is on that day, the present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants, seeking leave of this Court to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage to bring on record the letter dated 24.10.2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD as well as letter dated 27.10.2010 issued by Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) directing the Executive Engineer to terminate the contract from his end as authorized by another letter No. CC/PMGSY/CD/416/2009/3 dated 25.02.2019. 15. On perusal of the written statement filed by the present applicant before the Trial Court, it appears that nothing was pleaded therein I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 7 regarding the existence of above two letters, which are sought to be introduced by way of adducing additional evidence. 16. It is well settled deposition of law that the additional evidence sought to be introduced at appellate stage must be supported by the pleadings of the party seeking to introduce such evidence belatedly as any evidence beyond pleading would be inadmissible. 17. In the instant case also there is no mention about the letter sought to be introduced by way of additional evidence. Further, both the letters were issued by the applicant Nos. 2 and 5, however no reasonable grounds have been shown as to why for last 16 years same could not be produced before the Court and why no whisper about the existence of said letters were made earlier. 18. This Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to establish that in spite of exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within their knowledge or could not after due diligence be produced by them at the time when the decree appealed was passed. As such, their case does not fall under the circumstances mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The additional evidence could not be permitted to fill up the lacuna or to patch up the weak points of the party, seeking to produce such additional evidence. There is an apparent lack of due diligence on the part of the applicants. Further, under the circumstances of the present case, it may not be held that the documents sought to be adduced, without any pleadings there to, would be necessary to pronounce the judgment in connected RFA No. 5/2025. I.A.(Civil) No. 525/2025 in RFA No. 5/2025 Page 8 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court does not find any merit in the instant Interlocutory Application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma 2026.09.15 17:55:14 +05'30'