##PAGE1##

Civil Revision No.1840 of 2025 (O & M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

227 Civil Revision No.1840 of 2025 (O & M)

Date of decision :-27.03.2026

Murti Thakur Ji Maharaj Staphit Mandir Thakur Ji Maharaj

…..Petitioner

Versus

Hanuman and others …..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate with Ms. Swati Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocate

for the petitioner.

None for respondents No.1 to 3(a) to 3(d) despite service.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present revision petition is for setting aside

the order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul in Civil Appeal No.120 of 2018 titled as “Hanuman and others vs. Murti Thakur Ji Maharaj”, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has

been allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

impugned order is contrary to the settled position of law. It is submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Eastern Equipment and Sales Ltd. vs. ING. Yash Kumar Khanna, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 508, as well as the judgment of this

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.04.01 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Revision No.1840 of 2025 (O & M) 2

Court in Surender Kumar vs. Uma Dutt and others, 2025 NCPHHC 24726 and decision dated 19.12.2024 passed in Civil Revision No.2247 of 2021 titled as “Vijay Pal vs. Umed Singh”, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is required to be considered and decided along with the main appeal at the time of final hearing. It is argued that adjudication of such an application in isolation, prior to the hearing of the appeal, is impermissible in law and has caused

prejudice to the petitioner.

Vide order dated 26.03.2025, notice of motion was issued

to the respondents. As per the office report, all the respondents stand duly served. On the previous date of hearing, i.e. 07.07.2025, despite service, none had appeared on behalf of the respondents and the matter was adjourned to await their appearance. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, this

Court proceeds to decide the present petition in their absence.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

The short question that arises for consideration is whether

an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC can be decided

independently prior to the final adjudication of the appeal. The legal position on the issue is no longer res integra. It

has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal, as the relevance and necessity of additional evidence can be properly appreciated only

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.04.01 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Revision No.1840 of 2025 (O & M) 3

in the context of the issues arising in the appeal. Deciding such an application in isolation, without examining its bearing on the merits of

the appeal, is not in consonance with the settled principles of law.

In the present case, the learned first Appellate Court has

allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC independently, without adverting to the stage of final adjudication of the appeal. Such an approach cannot be sustained in view of the settled legal position

noticed hereinabove.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the

learned District Judge, Narnaul is hereby set aside.

The learned first Appellate Court is directed to consider

and decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with the main appeal at the time of its final hearing, in accordance with

law.

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

March 27, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )

JUDGE Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.04.01 17.10