2019 INSC 0459
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4628 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26755 of 2018)
Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr.               …Appellants
versus
M/s Tejas Co­operative Housing Society        …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the Order
dated 16.03.2018 passed in Revision Petition No. 175 of 2016
by   the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   National   Commission”).   The
Revision   Petition   was   filed   to   challenge   the   Interim   Order
dated   10.12.2015   passed   by   the   State   Commission
Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Mumbai
1

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   State   Commission”)   in   First
Appeal   No.   85   of   2013.   The   Appellants   herein   had   filed   an
Application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC  for  permission to
file   additional   documents,   which   have   come   into   existence
after the filing of the Appeal before the State Commission.
2. The   background   facts   in   which   the   present   Civil   Appeal   has
been filed are briefly stated as under:
2.1. The   Appellants   are   the   sons   of   Late   Smt.   Mrudula   K.
Ajmera  who   was  the   owner   and   in  possession   of  a   plot
of   land   bearing   CTS   No.   284/38,   Military   Road,   Marol
Village, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400059.
      The   Late   Smt.   Mrudula   K.   Ajmera   constructed   a
building   viz.   Tejas   Apartments   comprising   of   Ground
plus   7   Upper   Floors.   The   flats   were   sold   to   various
purchasers on ownership basis.
      The   flat   owners   formed   the   Respondent   –   Housing
Society  viz.  M/s Tejas Co­operative Housing Society.
2.2. The   Respondent   –   Housing   Society   filed   Consumer
Complaint   No.   570   of   2008   before   the   District
Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Forum,   Mumbai   Sub­
District.   It   was   alleged   that   the   Appellants/Opposite
Parties   had   failed   to   supply   service   amenities   to   the
members of the Respondent – Housing Society, failed to
2

obtain   the   Occupancy   Certificate   from   the   Municipal
Corporation,   and   execute   the   Conveyance   Deed   in
favour of the society.
      The   District   Forum   partly   allowed   the   Consumer
Complaint  vide  Order dated 27.02.2013. It was declared
that   the   Appellants   had   failed   to   supply   the   service
amenities   to   the   Respondent   –   Housing   Society,   and
obtain   the   Occupancy   Certificate   from   the   Municipal
Corporation, and execute the Conveyance Deed.
      The  District  Forum  directed  the  Appellants  to   obtain
the   Occupancy   Certificate   for   the   building   within   3
months   from   the   date   of   judgment.   If   the   Appellants
failed   to   obtain   the   Occupancy   Certificate   within   the
period   specified,   they   would   be   liable   to   pay   Rs.   500/­
per day to the society. 
      The   Appellants   were   further   directed   to   execute   the
Conveyance   Deed   in   favour   of   the   Respondent   –
Housing   Society   within   6   months   from   the   date   of
judgment;   refund   the   amount   of   Rs.   1,80,600/­
collected   from   the   society   members   towards   service
amenities;   refund   the   amount   of   Rs.   1,15,368/­
incurred   by   the   society   members   towards   formation   of
3

the   society;   and   refund   the   amount   of   Rs.   1,98,198/­
paid by the society members towards water taxes.
2.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order passed by the District
Forum, the Appellants filed First Appeal No. 85 of 2013
before   the   State   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission, Maharashtra.
     The said Appeal is presently pending before the State
Commission.
2.4. On   15.01.2014,   the   Appellants/Developers   filed   an
Application   under   Order   XLI   Rule   27,   CPC   for   leading
additional evidence before the State Commission in the
pending Appeal.
      The   Appellants   requested   for   permission   to   produce
two documents which had come into existence after the
filing of the Appeal i.e. (i) Letter dated 08.08.2013 from
their   Architect   to   the   Executive   Engineer,   Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) enclosing the
plans of  all the floors, and requested for issuance of the
Occupancy   Certificate;   (ii)   Reply   by   the   MCGM   dated
26.08.2013,   wherein   it   was   stated   that   as   per   the   visit
done,   there   was   unauthorized   enclosure   of   elevation
features   by   occupants   which   was   violative   of   the   last
approved  plans   dated  02.07.2001.   The  Appellants   were
4

directed   to   remove   the   unauthorized   structures   along
with compliance of requisite conditions.
2.5. The   State   Commission   vide   Interim   Order   dated
10.12.2015   held   that   these   documents   were   not
necessary, and rejected the Application.
2.6. Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   Interim   Order   dated
10.12.2015, the Appellants herein filed Revision Petition
No. 175 of 2016 before the National Commission.
      The   National   Commission   in   para   11   of   its   Order
dated   16.03.2018   held   that   it   is   an   admitted   fact   that
the additional documents sought to be produced by the
Appellants did not exist while the matter was before the
District   Forum.   The   National   Commission   merely   held
that the additional information sought to be introduced
does not satisfy the pre­conditions under Section 107(1)
(d) r.w. Rule 27 of Order  XLI, CPC, and since the State
Commission   had   held   that   the   documents   were   not
necessary, it did not call for any interference.
2.7. Aggrieved   by   the   Impugned   Order   dated   16.03.2018
passed   by   the   National   Commission,   the   Appellants
have filed the present Appeal.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties, and perused
the pleadings on record.
5

3.1. We have perused the Application filed by the Appellants
herein for bringing additional evidence on record, along
with   the   documents   sought   to   be   produced   in   the
pending   Appeal   before   the   State   Commission.   These
documents   have   admittedly   come   into   existence   after
the   Appeal   was   filed   before   the   State   Commission.   The
Appellants   therefore,   could   not   have   produced   the   said
documents before the District Forum.
3.2. Under   Order   XLI   Rule   27,   CPC   a   party   can   produce
additional   evidence   at   the   appellate   stage,   if   it
establishes   that   notwithstanding   the   exercise   of   due
diligence,   such   evidence   was   not   within   its   knowledge,
or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be
produced   by   it   at   the   time   when   the   decree   appealed
against was passed. 1
 
3.3. These   documents   are   of   relevance   to   establish   that   the
Appellants   are   not   in   a   position   to   obtain   the
Occupancy   Certificate   from   the   MCGM   until   the
unauthorized   structures,   which   are   in   violation   of   the
approved   plans,   are   removed.   In   the   absence   of   these
documents, the Appellants would not be in a position to
1   A. Andisamy Chettiar  v.  A. Subburaj Chettiar , (2015) 17 SCC 713.
6

substantiate   their   case   that   they   are   unable   to   obtain
the   Occupancy   Certificate,   and   comply   with   the
directions issued by the District Forum.
4. The   State   Commission   was   in   error   by   rejecting   the
Application filed by the Appellants under Order XLI Rule 27,
CPC   by   merely   stating   that   the   documents   are   “not
necessary”. The said Order   is  an  unreasoned  one. The  State
Commission must have taken a holistic view of the matter.
5. The National Commission has by the Impugned Order dated
16.03.2018   affirmed   the   Interim   Order   passed   by   the   State
Commission.
6. In   light   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   the   Interim   Order   dated
10.12.2015   passed   by   the   State   Commission   is   hereby   set
aside,  as  also   the   Impugned  Order   dated  16.03.2018  passed
by the National Commission.
      The   Civil   Appeal   is   allowed.   The   matter   is   remitted   to   the
State   Commission   to   take   the   additional   documents   on
record,   and   decide   the   Appeal   on   merits   in   accordance   with
law.   The   State   Commission   is   further   directed   to   decide   the
Appeal expeditiously since it is pending since 2013.
7

Ordered accordingly.
.....................................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
.…...............………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
May 6, 2019.
8