2025:HHC:31691 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.421 of 2019 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Sh. Ishwar Singh Kanwar … Petitioner Versus Sh. Lal Singh & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 15.06.2019, passed by the the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the order, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed, is not sustainable. 3. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31691 same was not passed by the learned Appellate Court at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. The application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was taken up in isolation, not at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and the impugned order has been passed on merit in light of the contents of the application so filed. The adjudication of the said application in the manner in which it has been done by the learned Trial Court is in violation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, has been pleased to 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 reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in this judgment that in case the application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of appeal, the order being a product of total and incomplete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce a judgment or not 3 2025:HHC:31691 remain inconsequential/in-executable and is liable to be ignored. 4. Coming to the facts of the present case, obviously in light of the fact that the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was not taken up by the learned Trial Court at the stage of final hearing of the appeal alongwith the main appeal, the impugned order is bad and is hit by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin and Another (supra). Learned Appellate Court ought to have taken up this application only at the time of final hearing of the appeal and after appreciation of the evidence therein, learned Appellate Court out to have had applied its judicial mind, as to whether what was being produced on record by way of additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce a judgment or for any other substantial cause or not. In the absence of said procedure been followed by the learned Appellate Court, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed on this short count. Order dated 15.06.2019 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside. The application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is revived and it is ordered that the same shall be taken up for consideration by the learned Appellate Court in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is 4 2025:HHC:31691 clarified that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the merit of the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and learned Appellate Court shall deal with it strictly in accordance with law. Record be sent back forth-with and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court concerned on 06.10.2025. 6. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 1 5 , 2025 (Rishi)