JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, in Civil Appeal No.CA-224-2023, whereby, the learned Court has directed that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC would be decided along with the main appeal instead of deciding the same first.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner filed civil suit for declaration, partition and consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. The same was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide its judgment and decree dated 15.05.2023, on the sole ground that the petitioner could not prove the ownership of her father. She, therefore, to prove the same, filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, after filing of the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad. Learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide impugned order dated 03.07.2025, adjourned the matter for 10.10.2025 for arguments on application preferred under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as well as on the main appeal. He, therefore, prays that if both the application as well as the main appeal would be heard together, petitioner would not be able to prove the title of ownership by production of additional evidence and it is only after the decision in application that appeal can be decided. He relies upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in North Eastern Railway Administration Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) and others, AIR 2008 SC 2139.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file with his able assistance.

4. This Court finds merits in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be in the interest of justice if the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is decided first so that the issue regarding title of ownership can be decided by the first appellate court after taking into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner and thereafter, the appeal be decided. Civil Suit filed by the petitioner is dismissed on the ground that petitioner failed to prove title of ownership of her father, without framing any issue regarding the same. Therefore, the petitioner could not place on record the documents proving the same and without allowing the petitioner to prove title of ownership of her father, she would not be able to prove her title, which was the declaration asked for in the civil suit. Further, for proper adjudication of appeal and in the interest of justice, application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence, oral as well as documentary, should be decided first.

5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das's case (supra), held as under:-

'17. It is manifest that in the present case, the High Court did not examine the record of the case with the thoroughness which was expected at the time of disposal of the pending applications. On a perusal of the impugned decisions, it is clear that the High Court was not even aware of the pendency of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking leave to adduce additional evidence. A perusal of the documents, which came to light pursuant to the directions given by the High Court on 3rd April, 2002, prima facie, goes to show that these are likely to widely affect the decision of the Court in one way or the other. If the stand of the appellant, which, according to them, is borne out from the documents now on record, is found to be correct, then obviously these will have material bearing on the core issue, namely, whether the decree dated 13th March, 2001 is a nullity, having been allegedly obtained by concealing material facts and playing fraud on the Court. It is trite that a judgment or decree by the first court or by the highest court obtained by