Ms Srusti Infotech And Others vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 4 August 2026

1. **1.** Application by the Appellants filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for filing additional evidence in the appeal.

2. **2.** Opposition filed by Respondent Bank.

3. **3.** Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as the Learned Counsel for Respondent and perused the records.

4. **4.** Instant appeal is preferred against order dated 22.01.2019 passed by Learned DRT, Cuttack in O.A. 67 of 2018 which was a counter-claim wherein the counter-claim was allowed for an amount of Rs.40.00 crore. Appellants herein filed the appeal for enhancement of the counter-claim. Four other appeals are also filed by the parties. Appeal No. 17 of 2019 is filed by the Bank against the same impugned order passed in the counter-claim 

whereby the Bank challenged the judgment and prayed for setting aside the counter-claim.

**5.** Appeal No. 16 of 2019 is filed by the Bank against an order allowing S.A. 96 of 2017 dated 22.01.2019 (M/s. Srusti Infotech -vs- Andhra Bank).

**6.** Appeal No. 18 of 2019 is filed by the Bank against judgment and order dated 22.01.2019 passed in TC 01 of 2017 whereby O.A. filed by the Bank was allowed for recovery of Rs.7,30,97,449.00 with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 7.75% per annum. Appeal is filed only challenging the rate of interest awarded by the DRT.

**7.** Appeal No. 13 of 2019 is filed by the Bank against judgment in S.A. 59 of 2017 dated 22.01.2019 (M/s. Srusti Infotech -vs- Andhra Bank) whereby the S.A. was allowed.

**8.** All the appeals, since are inter-connected, are being heard together.

**9.** In Appeal No. 18 of 2019 hearing has begun and the Learned Counsel for Appellant has concluded his submission although submission of the Respondents is yet to begin.

**10.** Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Appellant has filed the judgment of W.P. 36434 of 2018 (*Andhra Bank -vs- State of Telangana & Others*) which was decided on 30^th April, 2026 by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad whereby the Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Investigating

Agency was set at liberty to proceed with the investigation in F.I.R.s in accordance with law.

**11.** Another document is filed which is a copy of the Writ Petition along with annexure preferred by the Bank in the Hon'ble High Court. Learned Counsel would submit that the documents are relevant as judgment was passed pending appeal. The Writ Petition was filed by the Bank itself which is not a new document and the same was not filed earlier as the Writ Petition was pending before the Hon'ble High Court.

**12.** Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit that the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition with liberty to the Investigating Agency to investigate the two F.I.R.s No. 514 of 2011 and 967 of 2012 which are lodged by the Appellants for the fraud, forgery having been committed by the accused persons.

**13.** Learned Counsel would further submit that the case would squarely cover under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. although the Writ Petition consists of huge annexure, approximately one thousand pages, hence all the annexure are not being filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. rather only the relevant documents are filed.

**14.** Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a ***Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Union Bank of India -vs- Ibrahim Uddin & Another*** [(2012) 8 SCC 148], paragraph 36. It is further submitted that the documents are part of the judicial records and public documents which are filed to demonstrate the outcome of the judicial proceedings. No prejudice would be caused to the Bank as the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30^th April, 2026 is not challenged.

**15.** Learned Counsel would further submit that the documents are necessary to remove the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has direct and important bearing on the main issue in the case. The material filed is required for substantial justice.

**16.** Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent opposed the prayer and submits that hearing has already begun in one of the appeals. No due diligence is proved by the Appellant as to why the document, i.e., copy of the Writ Petition, could not be filed earlier although the material was already within the knowledge of the Appellants. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a recent judgment of the ***Hon'ble Apex Court in Govind Singh -vs- Union of India [(2026) 4 SCC 130]***.

**17.** Appeal is pending since 2020. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is filed on 24^th July, 2026. Bare perusal of the application would show that all the grounds in the application relates to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30^th April, 2026 which is admittedly a subsequent event and is a public document. However, leave is also sought for to file copy of the Writ Petition together with only such annexure as are relevant for proper appreciation of the controversy before this Tribunal. The documents referred to are (1) F.I.R. No. 514 of 2011 (2) F.I.R. No. 967 of 2012 (3) The allegations of fabrication and tampering of documents (4) Forensic examination and investigation referred to in the writ proceedings (5) Such other annexure as are necessary for complete adjudication of the issues involved herein.

**18.** Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is now twofold. Firstly, judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30^th April, 2026 passed in a Writ Petition filed by the Bank under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the two F.I.R.s and secondly filing of copy of Writ Petition along with selective annexure as additional evidence. Writ Petition was admittedly dismissed. This judgment was passed pending appeal.

**19.** For better appreciation of the issue, we have to refer to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. which reads as under:

**"27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court**

- (1) *The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if -*

(a) *The Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or*

*[(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or]*

(b) *the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause,*

*The Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined.*

(2) *Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."*

Bare perusal of the provision would reveal that there are grounds upon which an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. can be considered.

20. Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment of **Govind Singh** (supra) wherein the judgment of **Sanjay Kumar Singh** -vs- **State of Jharkhand and Union of India** -vs- **Ibrahim Uddin & Another**) were also considered and held that:

"26. The procedural framework under Order 41 C.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that an appeal is ordinarily to be decided on the evidence adduced before the trial court. The appellate court is not expected to embark upon a fresh fact-finding exercise or permit production of additional evidence as a matter of routine. Where the appellate court is satisfied that the material already available on record is sufficient to enable it to pronounce judgment, it is well within its jurisdiction to confine its consideration to the evidence forming part of the record of the courts below."

"22. Thus, a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision in *Ibrahim Uddin* makes it clear that the appellate court's inquiry, while considering an application for leading additional evidence, is confined to examining whether such evidence is necessary to remove a lacuna in the case. More importantly, the appellate court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied the conditions expressly stipulated under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Consequently, the provision has no application where the appellate court is in a position to render a satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of the evidence already available on record." (emphasis supplied)

21. Order 41 Rule 27 Sub Section (1) (aa) C.P.C. categorically provides that the parties seeking for production of evidence has to establish that despite exercising due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not after exercise of all due diligence be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Writ Petition was filed in the year 2018 while the impugned judgment was passed on 22.01.2019; meaning thereby, when the impugned judgment was passed, Writ Petition had already been filed before the Hon'ble High Court and all the annexure to the Writ Petition were well within the notice of the Appellant but despite this fact, the annexure to the Writ Petition or the copy of the Writ Petition was not filed before the DRT. Accordingly, DRT was not having any opportunity to consider the material which is now being filed by the Appellant as an additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. There is no explanation given in the application as to why the copy of Writ Petition, along with the annexure, could not be filed before delivery of judgment by the DRT. It means that the Appellants were not vigilant enough or has not exercised due diligence to file the document of Writ Petition before delivery of the judgment by the DRT.

**22.** Accordingly, the Appellants cannot take any advantage of the judgment relied upon by the Learned Counsel for Appellant rather application itself is hit by the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 Sub-Rule (1)(aa) C.P.C.

**23.** Accordingly, as far as the filing of copy of the Writ Petition, along with the annexure, is concerned, application cannot be allowed. However, as far as judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is concerned, since this is a public document and the judgment was delivered pending appeal, same can be taken on record in the appeal.

**24.** At this stage, it would also be appropriate to observe that the Appellants have not come up with clean hands in this application as the Appellants did not file all the annexure of the Writ Petition rather they chose to file only selective annexure in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Such action of the Appellant reflects that the Appellants are trying to mislead the Appellate Tribunal by opting not to file all the annexure of the Writ Petition which is not permissible under the law.

**25.** On the basis of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that I.A. 491 of 2026 is liable to be partly allowed.

O R D E R

I.A. 491 of 2026 is partly allowed. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad passed in W.P. 36434 of 2018 (Andhra Bank -vs- State of Telangana & Others) dated 30^th April, 2026 is admitted on record. Rest of the prayer for taking on record the copy of the Writ Petition, along with annexure, is dismissed.

Respondents are at liberty to file rebuttal, if any, within two weeks.

List on 22^nd September, 2026 for hearing of appeal.

Order pronounced in open Court.

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

Dated: 4^th August, 2026 ac

4.8.2026