1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 19-11-2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The basis of the dismissal of the application is that a similar application for bringing on record orders dated 28-11-1986, 25-5-1962 and 24-1-1970 passed by different revenue authorities was filed before the learned trial Court and the same was dismissed on 9-8-2000. Having not filed any appeal or revision order dated 9-8-2000 has attained finality and was binding. According to the learned Additional District Judge, plaintiff-petitioner has placed an order dated 25-2-2002 passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals for adducing additional evidence so that it may be shown that order has come into existence after the date of decision of the suit and an attempt has been made to camouflage the whole thing. It is appropriate to mention that the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed on 31-10-2001.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge is unsustainable in the eyes of law because it flows from an erroneous approach, order dated 9-8-2000 passed by the Civil Judge could always be subject matter of challenge before the Additional District Judge in appeal filed under Section 96 because such an order can always be attacked by virtue of provision of Order 43 Rule 1 (A) CPC. A reference to Order 43 Rule 1 A CPC can profitably be made which reads as under :

"1-A: Right to challenge non-appealable orders in appeal against decrees :-

(1) Where any order is made under this Code against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against the decree, contend that such order should not have been made and the judgment should not have been pronounced.

(2) In an appeal against a decree passed in a suit after recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should, or should not, have been recorded."

3. A perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that the judgment and decree along with interlocutory order have been made appealable under Section 96 read with Order 43 Rule 1 A CPC. The learned Additional District Judge has committed a legal error by observing that no appeal was filed whereas by filing the appeal, the plaintiff petitioner has also raised a challenge to the interlocutory order dated 9-8-2000 whereby his application for bringing on record various orders passed by different revenue authorities was dismissed. There is no warrant for the Additional District Judge to observe that since no revision against the order dated 9-8-2000 was filed, the aforementioned order has attained finality.

4. Even otherwise, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should have been decided at the stage of disposal of the appeal. There is prohibition grafted against piece meal decision on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The aforementioned proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V/s. T. N. Sahani 2001 (1) Pun LR 294 which has been followed by this Court in Municipal Committee, Ellenabad V/s. Shanti Devi 2003 (1) Pun LR 456 : (AIR 2003 P&H 215). The view of the Supreme Court in T. N. Sahani s case reads as under :

"It may be pointed out that this Court, as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramiah V/s. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 SC 1526, pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the Court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of record as it was, and so, it could not require additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment. It st