JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak whereby the application of the petitioner(s) for leading additional evidence has been dismissed.

2. On 06.02.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

'Present: Mr.Saurabh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Inter alia contends that in the present case, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been decided, although the main appeal is still pending and the next date in the main appeal is 18.02.2025. It is submitted that it is settled law that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be decided along with main appeal.

Notice of motion for 17.02.2025.

Notice re: stay.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the respondents through the counsel appearing in the Ist Appellate Court as well through dasti process.

To be shown in the urgent list.

February 06, 2025'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in support of his arguments, has referred to the judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed in CR-6145-2016 titled as 'Ravinder Kumar and another Vs. Sahab Singh and others'.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the application filed by the present petitioner(s) in appeal was without merit and deserved to be dismissed. It is submitted that however in case the application is to be remanded then the same should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the application and the said application be considered independently, after hearing both the parties. It is submitted that the application had been filed after a period of 40 years from the date of filing of the appeal.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as ' State of Rajasthan Vs. T. Sahani, reported as 2001(10) SCC 619 while relying upon an earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ' K Venkataramiah Vs. Seetharama Reddy', AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1526, had observed that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be decided along with the appeal and taking a view on the said application before hearing of the appeal was not appropriate and accordingly, the impugned order vide which challenge was made to the decision of the High Court, on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as well as on another application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which were decided prior to deciding of the appeal was set aside and the High Court was directed to consider the appeal and the applications afresh in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: -

'4. It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 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 the record as it was, and so, it could not be required additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the Court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to be Court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41, Rule 27(b), C.P.C. can be invoked. So the application under Order 41, Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have b