204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 12.05.2025 Pirthi & Anr ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Gram Panchayat, Gagarpur & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Service of respondent Nos.5 to 10 dispensed with vide order dated 15.01.2018.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.05.2017 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the application filed by the petitioner before the First Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for leading additional evidence ought to have been decided at the time of final hearing of the main appeal. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. [2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 727].

3. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that despite the appeal remaining pending for a period of four years, the application was not filed and when the case was fixed for arguments, the present application was filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim Uddin (supra)

has held as under :

“Stage of Consideration :

38. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Vide: Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 193; and Natha Singh & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1053).

39. In Parsotim Thakur & Ors. v. Lal Mohar Thakur &

Ors., AIR 1931 PC 143, it was held :

“The provisions of S.107 as elucidated by O.41, R.27 are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the Court of appeal. Under R.27, Cl.(1) (b) it is only where the appellate Court “requires” it (i.e. finds it needful). …… The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but “when on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent”, it may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party may move the Court to apply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands. Wherever the Court adopts this procedure it is bound by R. 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing, and under R.29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. The power so conferred upon the Court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised and one requirement at least of