In Brief
Jiten K. Ajmera and another challenged an order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that rejected their application to file additional evidence at the appellate stage. The additional documents—communications with the Municipal Corporation regarding occupancy certificate requirements—came into existence after the appeal was filed. The Supreme Court held that under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC, evidence not within a party's knowledge or producible despite due diligence at the lower court stage may be admitted on appeal. The Court found the State Commission erred in rejecting the application without reasoned analysis, merely stating documents were 'not necessary'. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.