IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6331-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 18.02.2026 Chander Bhan ...Petitioner Versus Abhey Ram (deceased) through his LRs and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anurag Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1(i).

(Through Video Conferencing)

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CM-46-CII-2026

1. This is an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading the legal representatives of respondent No.1-Abhey Ram.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and legal representatives of respondent No.1-Abhey Ram as mentioned in para 2 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as party subject to just exceptions and solely for the purpose of pursuing the main revision petition and the same would not be construed as an adjudication on the entitlement of the estate of respondent No.1-Abhey Ram.

3. Amended memo of parties is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main case

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the District Judge, Kaithal, whereby the application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiff/petitioner/appellant before the First Appellate Court, has been dismissed although main case is still pending.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per settled law, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is required to be decided along with the main appeal and thus, on the said short ground alone, impugned order deserves to be set aside and the First Appellate Court be directed to consider the said application along with the main appeal.

3. As per report of the Registry, although, respondent No.2 has been served however none has appeared on his behalf.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1(i) has submitted that in case impugned order is to be set aside and application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered along with the main appeal then it be clarified that the setting aside of the order should not be construed as if the application is allowed.

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

6. 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