Additional evidence in second appeal is exceptional, and concurrent findings of fact stand absent perversity or a substantial question of law.

Additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is exceptional and may be admitted only when the statutory grounds of due diligence, necessity for judgment, or substantial cause are strictly satisfied; evidence already available throughout the proceedings cannot be used to fill gaps in the record. In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact are not open to interference unless they are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or to give rise to a substantial question of law. On the stated facts, the application for additional evidence was rejected and the respondent's decree was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence could be admitted in second appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the concurrent findings of fact and the decree in favour of the respondent could be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence could be admitted in second appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Additional evidence in appeal is exceptional and can be permitted only where the case falls within the limited grounds in Order 41 Rule 27. The evidence sought to be produced was available with the appellant throughout the proceedings, and no convincing basis was shown to establish due diligence, necessity for pronouncing judgment, or any substantial cause. The request was therefore only an attempt to fill a lacuna in the record.

Conclusion: The application for additional evidence was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent findings of fact and the decree in favour of the respondent could be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The courts below had found that the respondent remained in possession, that the plot could not be developed because the high-tension wires and pole were not removed in time, and that the resumption was effected without proper hearing and procedure. The High Court found no perversity, no infirmity in the factual findings, and no substantial question of law arising for consideration. In second appeal, such concurrent findings are not open to interference unless shown to be perverse or arbitrary.

Conclusion: The decree in favour of the respondent was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the admissibility of additional evidence and the challenge to the concurrent factual findings, and the respondent's decree remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence at the appellate stage cannot be admitted to fill gaps in the evidence unless the statutory grounds are strictly satisfied, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent perversity or a substantial question of law.

---