The judgment clarified the procedure for dealing with applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and emphasized the requirement to hear the application along with the appeal on merits.

1. This Revision is preferred against the order of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur, dated 27.02.2012 made in I.A.No.51 of 2011 in A.S.No.173 of 2008 on the file of the above said Appellate Judge.

2. One Elanchezhiyan filed the Suit O.S.No.11 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur, against the respondent herein for declaration that the suit property belonged to him and for recovery of possession after removal of the construction allegedly made by the respondents herein encroaching upon the suit property. The learned trial Judge, after trial, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005.

3. As against the decree dismissing the suit, the plaintiff, namely Elanchezhiyan, preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.173 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur. During the pendency of the Appeal, Elanchezhiyan died and his legal representatives, who are the revision petitioners herein, got impleaded as appellants 2 to 6. During the pendency of the Appeal, they filed an application in I.A.No.51 of 2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The learned lower Appellate Judge, after hearing, dismissed the application by an order dated 27.02.2012 and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners, who are the appellants 2 to 6 in the above said appeal, have knocked at the doors of this Court for redressal by preferring the present revision.

4. Notice before admission was given to the respondent and the respondent is also represented by Counsel. The arguments advanced on both sides are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

5. The only ground on which the order of the learned Appellate Judge is sought to be challenged is that when a party to the Appeal files an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to lead additional evidence, the said application should have been heard along with the Appeal on merits and separate consideration of the application dehors the merits of the main Appeal in which the evidence will be traversed, is against the recognised principle of dealing with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that though there cannot be any quarrel over the proposition of law relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, there is nothing to show that the learned lower Appellate Judge did not consider the application along with merits of the Appeal and that hence the challenge made to the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Judge dismissing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is bound to fail. It is his further contention that the scope of requirement is to hear the application along with the Appeal on merits and such a requirement cannot be stretched further to contend that the order in such application should be either incorporated in the judgment in the Appeal or passed simultaneously while pronouncing the judgment in the Appeal.

7. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the above said submission made on both sides.

8. Of course, it is true that the preponderance of authorities in this regard which is spelt out in the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in S.Santhana Selvaraj vs. Jaffar Khan and two others reported in1998 (III) CTC 138 and also in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M. Ayyaswami and another vs. S.P.Ganesan and another reported in 1994-2-L.W.376 point out that an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should not be heard separately and it should be heard along with the appeal on merits. The scope of such a requirement cannot be extended by holding that the order passed in such an application should be either incorporated in the judgment itself or should be made simultaneously while pronouncing judgment in the appeal. The above said judgments of the single Judge of this Court in S. Santhana Sel