Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4301 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9333 of 2020 Petitioner :- Girja Shankar Respondent :- Addl.District And Session Judge/Spl.Judge P.C.Act-2 Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Aakash Prasad, Amitav Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Sri Amitav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. None turned up on behalf of the private respondents, despite service of notice. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 02.01.2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was rejected. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property by virtue of a sale- deed executed in his favour. The petitioner had filed a Suit No. 264 of 2013 seeking permanent injunction as the respondents were interfering in his possession. In the said suit along with list of documents, the petitioner had filed an original will allegedly executed in his favour. Subsequently, the respondents claims ownership on the same property by virtue of a sale-deed executed in their favour as the petitioner was not aware of the said sale-deed, he filed an another suit being Suit No. 453 of 2014 seeking cancellation of the sale-deed. The said suit came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not file the original copy of the sale-deed nor could he proved the same. The said suit was dismissed on 09.11.2017. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal no. 60 of 2018. 4. In the said appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed stating that the original copy of the will could not be filed as the same was filed in Original Suit No. 264 of 2013. The appellate Court rejected the said application mainly on the ground that the petitioner had the knowledge that the will was filed in the Suit No. 264 of 2013, as such, the petitioner could not establish the requirements as were specified under Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(aa). The said order prima facie appears to be incorrect inasmuch as it was specifically stated by the petitioner that the will was filed in Suit No. 264 of 2013 as such, he could not file the same as the said suit was also pending. The reasons for filing the additional evidence, was wholly justified and the requirements of Clause (aa) of Order 47 Rule 1 were also discharged. The order impugned cannot be justified in the facts of the case and is accordingly quashed. The appellate Court shall permit the additional evidence to be filed and shall proceed to decide the appeal with all expedition in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the above. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench