1 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No. 11491/2014 in C.O. No. 40/2014 in RFA No. 246/2011 Reserved on: 24.03.2026 Decided on: 21.04.2026 ________________________________________________ Sant Ram ....Applicant Versus NTPC …Non-applicant _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the non-applicant: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence. As per the applicant, the instant appeal has been preferred by the non-applicant against the award dated 25.06.2009, passed by learned Reference Court in Reference Petition No. 25-S/4 of 2007/06. The applicant has also preferred cross-objections for enhancement of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) compensation amount, taking into consideration the real market value, which has not been appreciated by the learned Reference Court in proper manner, as the sale deeds executed in the adjoining area were not taken into consideration at the time of passing of the impugned award. Learned Reference Court while deciding the value of the acquired land has awarded Rs. 5 lacs per bigha, irrespective of nature and classification of the land which was in fact on the lower side. It has been further submitted that aforesaid sale deeds of the area could not be produced on record while deciding the Reference Petition, as the same were not in possession and knowledge of the applicant at that time. According to the applicant, Sale Deed No. 381 of 2000 was executed on 28.06.2000 for Rs. 5 lacs per bigha, Sale Deed No. 324 of 2000 was executed on 02.06.2000 for Rs. 5 lacs per bigha and Sale Deed No. 618 of 2000 was executed on 21.11.2000 for Rs. 7 lacs per bigha. Therefore, in these circumstances, real market value of the acquired land could not be assessed on record. With these averments, it has been prayed that present application may be allowed and the 3 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) aforesaid sale deeds may be ordered to be taken on record to determine the real market value of the acquired land. 2. Reply to the application has been filed by the non-applicant/NTPC, wherein, it has been submitted that there is not even a remote reference in the application for making out a case for additional evidence. The non- applicant/appellant had filed the present appeal against the award passed by learned Reference Court by virtue of which, learned Reference Court had enhanced the amount of compensation in favour of the applicant/respondent. However, the appeal was ordered to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20.04.2017 alongwith cross-objections, but the cross-objections are now to be adjudicated afresh in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court on 16.07.2019. It has been denied that learned Reference Court had failed to determine the real/actual market value. Rather, the learned Reference Court on a correct appreciation of evidence led on record and after applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court had enhanced the amount of compensation by awarding uniform rate and had re- 4 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) determined the market value of the land. Hence, there is no illegality with such conclusion, as such, no error can be found with the adjudication made by learned Reference Court. It has been specifically denied that the Sale Deeds executed in respect of adjoining areas are relevant inasmuch as, onus was upon the claimant to have produced evidence regarding nature, potentiality and similarity of the land involved in the present appeal. It has been emphatically denied that the applicant was not having knowledge of the sale deeds which are now sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence. Hence, it has been submitted that production of additional evidence is wholly irrelevant and prayer for dismissal of the application has been made. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant and have also gone through the material available on record. 4. The perusal of the record reveals that learned Reference Court had assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 5 lacs per bigha vide impugned award dated 25.06.2009. Feeling aggrieved against the said award, the 5 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) respondent-NTPC filed an appeal before this Court i.e. RFA No. 246 of 2011. Alongwith the appeal, the claimant also filed filed Cross Objections, which were registered as Cross Objections No. 40 of 2014. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the present appeal alongwith other connected matters, filed by the respondent-NTPC, as well as cross objections vide judgment dated 20.04.2017. The said judgment was assailed by the claimant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 16.07.2019, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5557-5559 of 2019, the appeals filed by the claimants were allowed and the case was remanded back to this Court for deciding the cross- objections filed by the appellants (landowners) in accordance with law. 5. Admittedly, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.11.2000. It has been averred in the application that the applicant could not produce sale deeds, as the same were not in his possession and knowledge. Therefore, it has been prayed that in the interest of justice, the applicant may be permitted to produce on record Sale 6 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) Deed No. 381 of 2000 dated 28.06.2000, Sale Deed No. 324 of 2000 dated 02.06.2000 and Sale Deed No. 618 of 2000 dated 21.11.2000. 6. At this stage, it would be apt to reproduce Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, which reads as under:- “27. Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if: (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) 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 (b) 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, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.” 7. Thus the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court would be exercised not only when Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the code is attracted but also where such document is required by the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or for any other 7 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) substantial cause. If such additional evidence would have a material bearing on the crucial issue arising for decision between the parties, such application would be allowed de hors the allowable deficiency, if any. 8. The Appellate Court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment" but also for "any other substantial cause". Though general rule is that ordinarily, the Appellate Court would not travel outside the record of the lower Court and additional evidence, whether oral or documentary is not admitted, but Section 107 of CPC carves out an exception to the General Rule and enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed namely as prescribed under Rule 27 of Order 41. 9. In the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by Lrs. - (2008) 8 SCC 511,while placing reliance upon the case of Parsotim Thakur versus Lal Mohar Thakur 8 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) reported in AIR 1931 PC 143 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : - "15. Again in K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors. a Constitution Bench of this Court while reiterating the afore-noted observations in Parsotim's case (supra), pointed out 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 cause'. 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. Thus, the question whether looking into the documents, sought to be filed as additional evidence, would be necessary to pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner, has to be considered by the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits." 10. Thus, irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is, if appellate Court finds that additional evidence sought to be admitted, is necessary to pronounce judgment in a satisfactory manner, it would allow the application as otherwise it would be dismissed. 11. The claimant has filed the reference petition, assailing the award passed by Land Acquisition Collector for enhancement of compensation and the learned Reference Court had assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 5 9 ( 2026:HHC:12707 ) Lacs per bigha alongwith statutory benefits. In order to substantiate their pleadings, application for additional evidence has been filed by the claimant on the ground that sale deeds of the area could not be produced on record while deciding the reference petition, as the same were not in possession and knowledge of the applicant at that time. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, Sale Deeds, as sought to be placed on record by way of present application, would be necessary to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment in a satisfactory manner, 12. Hence, the present application is allowed. The Sale Deeds No. 381 of 2000 dated 28.06.2000, 324 of 2000 dated 02.06.2000 and 618 of 2000 dated 21.11.2000, appended with the application, are ordered to be placed on record and the applicant is permitted to prove the sale deeds in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 21st April, 2026 Judge (raman)