2025:HHC:30835 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 372 of 2022 Decided on: 09.09.2025 Amarnath and another … Petitioners Versus Nand Lal and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5. : Respondents No. 4 and 6 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “Order dated 27.05.2022 Annexure P-4 may kindly be quashed and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC bearing CM No. 323 of 2022, titled Nand Lal and others vs. Amarnath and others may kindly be allowed.” 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned order. 3. In terms of the order under challenge, learned Appellate 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:30835 Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to lead additional evidence. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order per se is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the stage, at which, the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dealt with by the learned Appellate Court, was not the stage to deal with the same. It is settled law that an application filed for leading additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be taken up for consideration at the time of the final hearing of the case. It is at said stage that the application filed for leading additional evidence has to be dealt with on merit and order if any, has to be passed at that stage. However, in the present case, this has not been done and the application was taken up for consideration and decided during the pendency of the appeal and not at the time of final hearing of the appeal. On this short count, the impugned order has to go. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 27.05.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, in CMA No. 323 of 2022, titled as Nand Lal vs. Amar Singh, is set aside and the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is restored to its 3 2025:HHC:30835 original number, with the observation that the learned Appellate Court shall take into consideration the application at the time of final hearing of the appeal. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the merit of the said application. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 09, 2025 (narender)