Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 08.08.2025 vs Shri Raj Kumar (Deceased) Through His on 8 August, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:26794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.439 of 2020
Decided on: 08.08.2025
.
Sh. Jagtar Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Shri Raj Kumar (deceased) through his
LRs. Ram Piari & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Petition
and set aside the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by
Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una District Una
(HP) and the Application Under Order 41 Rule 27 may
kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice."
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by
the petitioner to lead additional evidence, under Order XLI, Rule 27
of the Civil Procedure Code stands dismissed by the learned
Appellate Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:26794
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus
Ibrahim Uddin and another, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and has submitted
.
that as it is evident from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil
Procedure Code can be considered only at the time of final disposal
of the appeal, disposal thereof in terms of the rejection order during
the pendency of the appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Appellate Court, for the reason that as the learned Appellate
Court did not find any merit in the application, the same has been
rightly rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus
Ibrahim Uddin and another, 2012 (8) SCC 148, has been pleased to
inter alia hold that an application for taking additional evidence on
record at an appellate stage even if filed during the pendency of the
appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a
stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the Court
arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be
taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other
substantial cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in
2025:HHC:26794
case the application for taking additional evidence on record has
been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the
.
order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind,
as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to
pronounce the judgment or not, remains in-consequential, in-
executable and is liable to be ignored.
7. Thus, it is evident from the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that an application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of
the Civil Procedure Code during the pendency of the appeal has to
be taken into consideration only at the time of the final decision of
the appeal when the learned Appellate Court has to apply its judicial
mind as to whether the additional evidence is required for
pronouncement of the judgment or not. This extremely important
aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Appellate Court
while passing the impugned order. Learned Appellate Court should
not have decided the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the
Civil Procedure Code during the pendency of the appeal as has been
done in the present case.
8. Therefore, as there is perversity in the impugned order,
this petition is allowed and order dated 27.20.2020 (Annexure P-1) is
quashed and set aside. The application qua additional evidence is
ordered to be revived to its original position with the direction that
the learned Appellate Court shall consider the same at the time of
final adjudication of the appeal in accordance with law.
2025:HHC:26794
9. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Interim
order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
.
any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
August 08, 2025
(Rishi)
r to
