Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted for fuller adjudication, but motion-stage cross-examination can be refused absent necessity.

Additional evidence may be admitted in appeal where the appellate court considers it necessary for a more satisfactory adjudication or to prevent an incomplete or obscure record, but the power remains discretionary and is not meant to repair a weak case. Applying that approach, the court accepted documents relevant to the issues of knowledge and fraud and allowed them to be taken on record. By contrast, a request for cross-examination at the motion stage was refused because the proceeding was decided on affidavits and no oral evidence was shown to be necessary at that interlocutory stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional documents could be produced and taken on record in appeal under the appellate power to admit additional evidence. (ii) Whether the request to cross-examine the deponent at the motion stage should be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether additional documents could be produced and taken on record in appeal under the appellate power to admit additional evidence.

Analysis: The governing approach under the appellate rules permits reception of additional material where the Court requires it to pronounce judgment more satisfactorily or where substantial cause exists. The power is discretionary and is not meant to fill up a weak case, but it may be exercised where material documents bear directly on the controversy and their consideration would avoid an incomplete or obscure record. The Court found that both sides had produced materials relevant to the issue of knowledge and fraud, and that taking the documents on record would assist in deciding the matter on a fuller evidentiary basis.

Conclusion: The application to produce and rely on additional documents was allowed, and the documents were permitted to be taken on record in appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the request to cross-examine the deponent at the motion stage should be allowed.

Analysis: The motion had been decided on affidavits, and on the material before the Court there was no necessity for oral evidence at that interlocutory stage. The Court therefore declined to enlarge the motion proceeding into one requiring oral cross-examination.

Conclusion: The request for cross-examination was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory motion was disposed of by permitting both sides to place additional documents on record, while refusing oral cross-examination, with costs awarded on the motion.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence may be admitted in appeal when its consideration is necessary for a more satisfactory adjudication or to avoid obscurity in the record, but oral evidence at an affidavit-based motion stage will not be permitted absent necessity.

---