2025:HHC:26794 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.439 of 2020 Decided on: 08.08.2025 Sh. Jagtar Singh … Petitioner Versus Shri Raj Kumar (deceased) through his LRs. Ram Piari & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Petition and set aside the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una District Una (HP) and the Application Under Order 41 Rule 27 may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner to lead additional evidence, under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code stands dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:26794 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin and another, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and has submitted that as it is evident from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code can be considered only at the time of final disposal of the appeal, disposal thereof in terms of the rejection order during the pendency of the appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, for the reason that as the learned Appellate Court did not find any merit in the application, the same has been rightly rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin and another, 2012 (8) SCC 148, has been pleased to inter alia 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 arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in 3 2025:HHC:26794 case the application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains in-consequential, in- executable and is liable to be ignored. 7. Thus, it is evident from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code during the pendency of the appeal has to be taken into consideration only at the time of the final decision of the appeal when the learned Appellate Court has to apply its judicial mind as to whether the additional evidence is required for pronouncement of the judgment or not. This extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order. Learned Appellate Court should not have decided the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code during the pendency of the appeal as has been done in the present case. 8. Therefore, as there is perversity in the impugned order, this petition is allowed and order dated 27.20.2020 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. The application qua additional evidence is ordered to be revived to its original position with the direction that the learned Appellate Court shall consider the same at the time of final adjudication of the appeal in accordance with law. 4 2025:HHC:26794 9. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 08, 2025 (Rishi)