IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1319 of 2015 Benudhar Nayak & Ors. ..... Petitioners Represented by Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate Mr. S. Das, Advocate -versus- Radhamani Nayak & Ors. ..... Opp.Parties Represented by Mr. Soumya Dev Ray, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA Order No. ORDER 21.5.2026. I.A. No.1292 of 2019 20. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. It is stated that the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 11 namely, Iswar Chandra Nayak and Laxmidhar Nayak died on 6.6.2017 and 24.10.20-26 respectively. The present application has been filed for substitution of their legal heirs as opposite parties in their place. 3. The prayer for substitution is allowed. The proposed legal heirs mentioned in the I.A. be impleaded as Opposite Party Nos.4(a) to 4(c) and 11(a) to 11(d). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to file consolidated cause title in course of the day after serving copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. 5. The I.A. is disposed of. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge I.A. No.748 of 2021 21. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. It is stated that the opposite party No.10 (Dibakar Nayak) died on 23.9.2021. The present application has been filed for substitution of his legal heirs as opposite parties in his place. 3. The prayer for substitution is allowed. The proposed legal heirs mentioned in the I.A. be impleaded as opposite party Nos.10(a) to 10((e). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to file consolidated cause title by tomorrow after serving copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. 5. The I.A. is disposed of. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge C.M.P. No.1319 of 2015 22. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S.D.Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. 3. The appellants in R.F.A. No.7/2002 pending in the court of learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Puri are the petitioners herein. An application was filed by them in the court below under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. seeking to adduce additional evidence. The same was rejected by order dtd.30.7.2015. The Court below, after going through the materials on record including the statutory provision and some judicial pronouncements, rejected the petition by making the following observations: “Court cannot admit additional evidence under inherent power unless it comes within this rule. Further in the case reported in 44(1977) C.L.T. 65 it is held that ‘provision of Rule 27 is n to available to party who is deliberately negligence’. Thus, on going the above case laws and referring many others it is clear that admitting evidence at the appellate stage is not a general rule and it is to be allowed only in exceptional case and that to when the appellant satisfied the requirement U/s.41 Rule 27 C.P.C. here it is found that the petition is silent if it is coming under either Rule 27(a). There is also nothing for this Court to hold at the stage that the said documents are required for the just or any other circumstantial cause and so this Court has got no reason to assigned for allowing the petition. Hence, I found the petition is to be devoid any merit. Accordingly, it is rejected. Put up latter for fixing of date regarding hearing of the appeal.” 4. Mr. Biswal, submits that the order is a non-speaking one and does not truly reflect the contentions laid before the Court. He further submits that as per the settled position of law, the application for adducing additional evidence could have been considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 5. Mr. S.D. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties, on the other and, submits that the application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence is not to be allowed as a matter of course and unless proper grounds are shown, the Court would be justified in rejecting it. 6. Apart from the above submissions, learned counsel for the parties together submit that the matter has been stayed as per order passed by this Court since 2015. 7. Having regard to the above facts and without making any observation as regards the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and by directing the First Appellate Court to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 afresh at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 8. The CMP is disposed of accordingly. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge AKB