Additional evidence, deemed admission and adverse inference can sustain a decree when pleadings are deficient and documents are withheld.

Additional evidence may be admitted at the appellate stage where it is necessary for a just decision and its genuineness is not in dispute. A material averment must be specifically denied; where the written statement does not traverse it, the facts may be treated as admitted. Adverse inference is justified when a relevant document within a party's possession is withheld without satisfactory explanation. A limitation or maintainability objection will not succeed without a proper plea and consistent pleadings. On these principles, the plaintiff's decree was affirmed and the second appeal was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether additional evidence could be admitted at the appellate stage; (ii) whether the defendant's pleadings amounted to specific denial or gave rise to deemed admission; (iii) whether adverse inference could be drawn for non-production of documents; and (iv) whether the suit was barred by limitation or otherwise not maintainable.

Issue (i): whether additional evidence could be admitted at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The additional documents consisted of certified and attested material relevant to the claim and were found necessary for a just decision. Their genuineness was not disputed, and the appellate court's discretion in receiving them was exercised on sound grounds.

Conclusion: The admission of additional evidence was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the defendant's pleadings amounted to specific denial or gave rise to deemed admission.

Analysis: Denial of a material averment must be specific. The written statement did not specifically traverse the plaintiff's material assertions, and the appellate court was justified in treating the unchallenged facts as admitted.

Conclusion: The finding of deemed admission was sustained.

Issue (iii): whether adverse inference could be drawn for non-production of documents.

Analysis: The relevant document was within the State's possession, yet it was withheld without satisfactory justification. In such circumstances, drawing an adverse inference was warranted.

Conclusion: The adverse inference was properly drawn.

Issue (iv): whether the suit was barred by limitation or otherwise not maintainable.

Analysis: The plea of limitation was not specifically raised in the trial court and was inconsistent with the stand taken in the written statement. The objection based on limitation and the objection to the suit's maintainability were rejected on the facts and the pleadings.

Conclusion: The limitation and maintainability objections failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate decree in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed and the second appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence may be admitted in appeal when it is necessary for a just decision, untraversed material facts may be treated as admitted, and adverse inference may be drawn from unjustified withholding of relevant documents; procedural objections like limitation cannot succeed without a proper plea and specific denial.

---