The essentiality of the documents sought to be brought on record must be considered, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin must be applied when deciding on applications for additional evidence.

Ran Vijai Singh, J.

Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut in Civil Revision No. 04 of 2010 (Smt. Anita Sharma and others Vs. Om Prakash Batra and another) by which the petitioners' application no. 35-Ga filed under Order 41 of Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.) for filing the additional evidence has been rejected.

4. While assailing the impugned order, Sri Agarwal submits that the impugned order is in teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (2012) 8 SCC 148 . The reliance has been placed upon paragraph 41 of the aforesaid judgment. In his submissions, the application of the petitioners ought to have been considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal, when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause and prior to that the application could not be rejected merely on the ground that it does not satisfy the rigour of Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C.

5. As has been noticed that the impugned order dated 10.9.2014 of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut on an application no. 35-Ga filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. is under challenge before this Court. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the application has been rejected only on the ground that ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 are not satisfied. While challenging this order, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 41 of the judgment in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (supra) which reads as under : -

41. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/in executable and is liable to be ignored.

6. Sri Gupta has contended that in a revision, every stage is the stage of final hearing, therefore it cannot be said that the application has been heard prior to the stage of final hearing and the order under challenge is vitiated on account of that.

7. For the sake of argument, even if the argument of learned counsel for the respondents is taken to be correct, then it has to be seen as to whether the court dealing with the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. has applied its mind regarding essentiality of the documents sought to be brought on record through additional evidence as to whether they are necessary for deciding the real controversy. Here in this case, from the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Judge deciding the application has neither considered the merit of the application nor recorded any finding regarding its essentiality or no essentiality for deciding the real controversy. The order has only been passed taking note of the provisions contained under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. The learned Judge of the court below has not at all applied his