IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (111)

CR-5869-2019 Date of Decision: - 11.02.2025 Kulwant Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Mohindro @ Mohinder Kaur (deceased) through LRs and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, vide which the application for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that at any rate, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on the short ground that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed prior to deciding the main appeal. It is further submitted that it has repeatedly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court that the application under Order

41 Rule 27 CPC has to be decided alongwith the main appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that in case the impugned order is to be set aside on the said aspect, the same should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the application and the application should be considered by the Court independently at the time of deciding the main case.

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...