IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-4186-2022 Date of decision : 24.04.2025 Jasbir Singh ... Petitioner Versus Ukesh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Ankur Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-8) and subsequent order dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by the District Judge, Palwal, vide which the application dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) for additional evidence filed by the respondent has been allowed although the main appeal is still pending.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for additional evidence filed by the respondent has been allowed without deciding it alongwith the main appeal and thus, on the said short ground alone, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application filed by the respondent was very meritorious and therefore, it has been rightly allowed.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

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

6. 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