IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.499/2015 a/w CMPMO Nos.500 & 501 of 2015 Date of Decision: 24th July, 2025. 1. CMPMO No.499 of 2015 Mansha Ram (Deceased) through LRs .....Petitioners Versus Ram Lok (deceased) through LRs and Ors. ….Respondents 2. CMPMO No.500 of 2015 Mansha Ram (Deceased) through LRs .....Petitioners Versus Ram Lok (deceased) through LRs and Ors. ….Respondents 3. CMPMO No.501 of 2015 Mansha Ram (Deceased) through LRs .....Petitioners Versus Ram Lok (deceased) through LRs and Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saparsh Bhushan, Advocate, in all the petitions. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petitions, a challenge has been laid to impugned composite order dated 03.11.2015, whereby the First Appellate Court has rejected three applications, one under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the second under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the third under Order 14 Rule 5, CPC for framing of additional issues. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Insofar as dismissal of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is concerned, suffice it to state that it was incumbent on the First Appellate Court to consider the same at the time of hearing the appeal on merits, so as to find out as to whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court reported as 2010 (13) SCC 487, titled Malayalam Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. Relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- “15. In view of the above provision, in our opinion, when an application for reception of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was filed by the parties, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. The above principle has been reiterated by this Court in Jatinder Singh & Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 354 and Shyam Gopal Bindal and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer and 16. If any petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 in an appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to consider at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing in the issues involved. It is trite to observe that under Order 41, Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial Court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party was 3 not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature. 17. It is equally well-settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae or to patch up the weak points in the case Adducing additional evidence is in the interest of justice. Evidence relating to subsequent happening or events which are relevant for disposal of the appeal, however, it is not open to any party, at the stage of appeal, to make fresh allegations and call upon the other side to admit or deny the same. Any such attempt is contrary to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Additional evidence cannot be permitted at the Appellate stage in order to enable other party to remove certain lacunae present in that case.” 4. For the aforesaid reason, impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court insofar it disallows the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is concerned, is set aside. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits, as to whether the application filed for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, should be allowed or not, which shall be decided by the First Appellate Court in accordance with law. Besides the aforesaid, merits of the claims made by both the parties have also not been gone into except the reasons indicated hereinabove. 5. Insofar as the impugned order qua dismissal of the applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, are concerned, I have perused pleadings in this respect, the impugned order and I see no reason to 4 differ with the view taken by the First Appellate Court, while dismissing the aforesaid two applications. 6. Even otherwise, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 7. Besides the aforesaid, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 8. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 9. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court below on 19.08.2025. Registry is directed to send back the record forthwith. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 24th July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)