An application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must be heard and decided at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, rather than as a preliminary requirement, to determine if such evidence is necessary for pronouncing judgment.

Order

14/08/2025

Reportable

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metro-I (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”) rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for deciding the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 read with Rule 27 CPC for taking additional evidence on the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the respondents against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of the rent. The same was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.12.2019 against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. Counsel submits that during pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 25 and Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was submitted by the petitioner with the averment that the eviction application was submitted by the respondents on the ground of default and the rent was not paid by the petitioner in spite of receipt of notice dated 22.04.2009.

4. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the petitioner was kept pending till final disposal of the appeal submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2021.

5. Counsel submits that at this stage, an application under Section 151 CPC was submitted before the Appellate Court with a request to decide the said application first before deciding the appeal. Counsel submits that in stead of deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 read with Rule 27 CPC, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

6. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of North Eastern Administration Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan reported in 2008 (8) SCC 511, has held that the application submitted under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be decided first before taking up the appeal on its merits. Counsel submits that going contrary to the aforesaid proposition of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

7. Counsel submits that a direction be issued to the Appellate Court to decide the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 and 27 CPC first before deciding the appeal on its merits.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 & 27 CPC has not been rejected by the Appellate Court rather the same has been kept pending for disposal along-with the appeal and in this regard, an order has already been passed on 06.08.2021. Counsel submits that no documentary evidence has been produced with the application submitted by the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the Appellate Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

9. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

10. Perusal of the record in