JUDGMENT (ORAL)

M.S. Sonak, J.—Heard Zeller De Souza, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. A.D. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

2. Rule.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The short question which arises for determination in this petition is not whether the petitioners application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. ought to have been allowed or not but the question is the stage at which the said application should have been taken up for consideration.

5. In Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations at paras 49 to 53.

49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. 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 n