An appellate court must consider applications for additional evidence alongside the appeal to ensure accurate judgment, as early disposal contradicts procedural intent.

ORDER :

1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the behest of the petitioners/appellants assailing an order dated 19^th July, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Odagaon, Nayagarh in R.F.A. No.14 of 2020 by which an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for adducing additional evidence was rejected on the premise that once the counterclaim and the application for amendment filed in the Trial Court is rejected, leave to adduce such additional evidence cannot be allowed in the appeal.

2. The first and foremost point involved in the instant CMP as to whether the appellate Court was justified in disposing of an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC before the hearing of the said appeal. In other words, whether the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC should be disposed of along with the appeal or may be disposed of at the earlier point of time.

3. The said provision bestowed power upon the appellate Court to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence, provided the eventualities envisaged therein are fulfilled.

4. The appellate Court shall permit the parties to produce additional evidence, provided the party seeking in this regard satisfies the appellate Court that such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not after the exercise of due diligence be produced at the time when the decree or the order was passed, which is appealed against. Apart from the same, in the event the appellate Court requires any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any substantial cause, there is no fetter on the part of the appellate Court to permit the party to produce the additional evidence at the appellate stage.

5. It is, thus, evident from a meaningful reading of the provisions contained under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC that the satisfaction of the appellate Court is paramount for any document or the evidence to be adduced for pronouncing the judgment in an effective manner.

6. It, therefore, leads to an inescapable conclusion that the appellate Court shall consider the said application along with the hearing of the appeal as it would assist the appellate Court to pronounce the judgment in an effective manner and, therefore, its consideration and disposal at an earlier point of time is opposed to such legislative intent.

7. The apex Court, in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, has highlighted the importance of disposal of the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC along with the appeal in the following:

"Stage of consideration

49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defec