The court emphasized that applications for additional evidence must be considered alongside the main appeal to ensure fair adjudication, following established judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the modification of the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar to the extent that the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed.

2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) would show that the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for additional evidence was dismissed by the 1^st Appellate Court although the main appeal was still pending. In the same impugned order, the application under Section 151 CPC by the present petitioners for summoning the original record pertaining to the death of Siryan daughter of Harphool son of Shadi was disposed of.

3. 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 been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view would be inappropriate.....

4. Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 13.08.2009 passed in case titled as “ Surjit Kaur and another Vs Bhupinder Singh Waraich , reported as 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 563, had held as under: -

“The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Eastern Equipment & Sales Ltd. v. Ing. Yash Kumar Khanna, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 508: 2008(5) RAJ 565 : 2008(3) PLR 689, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been ple