IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1374-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 SURESH DEVI ......... Petitioner Versus UDAI SINGH ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide which an application for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been allowed in an appeal instituted by the respondent titled ‘Udai Singh Vs. Suresh’.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material placed on the file.

3. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-appellant has instituted the appeal against judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was moved. Learned Appellate Court has 20.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) without hearing the arguments in the main appeal, whereas as per settled law, the said application could have been allowed only after hearing the arguments in appeal as well as on the application. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (4) SCC (Civil) 951 titled ‘Malayalam Plantation Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and another’, 2012 SCC Online SC 528 titled ‘Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another’ and judgment of this Court in Law Finder Doc Id # 2835620 titled ‘Bharat Bhushan Vs. Kulwant Singh and others’.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malayalam Plantation Ltd.’s case (supra) has held that if an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC during an appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the Appellate Court to consider the same at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so as to find out whether documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. In Bharat Bhushan’s case (supra), it has also been held that an application for additional evidence at the appellate stage should be decided alongwith the appeal and not prematurely. The Appellate Court is required to assess whether additional evidence is necessary for pronouncing the judgment or for any substantial cause.

6. Various zimni orders have been placed on the file which show that the arguments on appeal have not been heard and the the same has been allowed without forming an opinion whether additional evidence is necessary for pronouncing the judgment or for any substantial cause.

7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that material irregularity has been committed while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC separately without hearing the arguments on the main appeal and the impugned order is, thus, not sustainable.

8. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) is set aside. However, the learned Appellate Court shall decide the said application afresh, after hearing the arguments on the main appeal as well as on the application and shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

9. The present petition stands allowed.

10. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)

JUDGE

18.02.2026 Ali Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No