Additional Evidence on Appeal under Order XLI r27 allowed where evidence was improperly denied; director liability claims unproven.

The note addresses appellate admission of additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27 CPC, holding that an appellate court may direct recording of further evidence where the trial court improperly refused to admit evidence or allow cross-examination; the direction was properly applied here. It also examines recovery claims against directors for misfeasance, concluding that director liability requires specific particulars and probative documentary proof for entitlement and quantification; several large commission claims lacked such proof while certain stock, asset and remission items were quantifiably allowed. The High Court's allowances, disallowances and modified decree were upheld on the evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court rightly directed recording of additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the official liquidator established liability of the directors for the specified sums claimed (items (1) to (6)) and whether the High Court was correct in its allowances and disallowances on merits.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence should have been allowed under Order XLI, rule 27 CPC when the trial court had refused to permit the respondents to lead evidence and cross-examine.

Analysis: The appellate power under Order XLI, rule 27 CPC permits admission of additional evidence where the trial court has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or where the appellate court requires further material to pronounce judgment. The record shows the trial court declined respondents' requests to lead evidence and to cross-examine after fixing the matter for argument, while the official liquidator had not led evidence nor furnished particulars supporting the misfeasance charges; the show-cause notice was based on public examination without adequate particulars. This established that the trial court had improperly rejected the respondents' prayer to produce evidence and cross-examine, thereby creating a proper basis under sub-rule (1)(a) for the appellate court to direct additional evidence.

Conclusion: Additional evidence was properly directed to be recorded under Order XLI, rule 27 CPC in view of the trial court's improper refusal.

Issue (ii): Whether the official liquidator proved the claims for recovery against the directors in respect of the six listed items.

Analysis: Each claimed item was examined against the evidential basis. The claimed commission on the Stein-Muller boiler (Rs. 1,30,000) lacked proof of a connection between the Nagpur company and the transaction; the alleged entitlement to infringement and other commissions (items (1), (2) and (3)) was not sufficiently supported by agreements or documentary proof establishing the Nagpur company's right to the sums claimed; certain stock, furniture and vehicle items were assessed by comparing opening and closing balances and audit reports, permitting limited recovery for specific amounts; wrongful remission to a sister concern was substantiated and allowed. The High Court's factual findings on insufficiency of proof and on quantified recoveries were accepted on review.

Conclusion: The High Court correctly allowed and disallowed the respective items on the evidence; the official liquidator did not establish entitlement to the large commission claims and the decree as modified by the High Court stands.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is without merit on both the procedural ground for admission of additional evidence and on the substantive claims; the High Court's judgment and quantified decree are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court may order additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27 CPC when the trial court has improperly refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted, and on the merits recovery from directors for misfeasance requires specific particulars and probative evidence establishing entitlement and quantification of loss.

---