IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7391-2025 Date of decision: 20.11.2025 Kailash Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Kartar Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala.

2. On 16.10.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

“Present: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr.Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Inter alia contends that the petitioner had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2020 and against the same, the present petitioner has filed an appeal and along with the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule

27 CPC has been filed. It is submitted that prior to deciding the said appeal, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been decided and the same has been dismissed. It is argued that it is a matter of settled law that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be decided along with the main appeal and not prior to the main appeal. In support of said arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. T. Sahani reported as 2001(10) SCC 619 as well as K.Venkataramiah vs. Seetharama Reddy reported as AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1526 Notice of motion for 12.11.2025.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the respondents through dasti process as well as through the counsel appearing before the Ist Appellate Court.

To be shown in the urgent list.

Till the next date of hearing, the Ist Appellate Court would not pass the final order.

October 16, 2025”

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in case the impugned order is to be set aside only in view of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, then same should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and it should be clarified that the said application would be considered on merits along with first appeal and liberty be granted to the respondents to raise all the pleas to oppose the said application. It is further prayed that the present revision petition be disposed of.

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 SC 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 SC 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 justi