ORDER

1. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2024 passed by the First District Judge, Shivpuri/Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.RCA/23 of 2023 whereby two applications; one under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC and another under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC preferred by the respondent/appellant were allowed and he was permitted to carry out the amendment in the plaint as well as was allowed to bring certain documents on record.

2. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are respondents in the appeal, has submitted that the said order is per se illegal, as the applications preferred by the present respondent/appellant could only have been considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits and not otherwise, thus is de-hors the settled principle of law as enunciated by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various pronouncements and therefore, liable to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the orders passed by this Court in the matters of Khemchand Mulchand v. Govt. of M.P., Bhopal reported in 1972 JLJ 482 = 1972 MPLJ 524; Suresh Prasad & Others v. Ram Krishna & Others reported in 2002 (3) M.P.L.J. 208; Betu Lal Lodhi v. Mst. Maharaniya Lodhi reported in 2023 (II) MPWN 29 as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148, has contended that any application preferred alongwith the appeal either it may be under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC or under section 151 of CPC (though it should have been under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC) is required to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance or bearing on the issues involved and not otherwise.

4. It was further contended that the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause and the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the Court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court.

5. It was further contended that from the aforesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that an 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.

6. It was further contended that the apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (supra), has even gone to extent that if any 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/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it was prayed that the impugned order whereby the applications under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC and under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC respectively were allowed being per-se illegal and perverse deserves to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned cou