In Brief
The appellants, developers of an apartment building, sought to produce additional documents at the appellate stage of a consumer dispute. These documents—correspondence with the municipal corporation regarding occupancy certificate conditions—came into existence after the appeal was filed. The State Consumer Commission rejected the request, stating the documents were 'not necessary'. The Supreme Court held that this rejection was unreasoned and erroneous. The Court clarified that under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC, additional evidence may be admitted at the appellate stage if it could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence. The Court set aside both the State and National Commission orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the evidence on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.