1 ( 2025:HHC:19147 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.629 of 2024 Date of Decision : 20.06.2025 Co-operative Society Diur …… Petitioner Versus Soma and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh and Karan Veer Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.06.2025. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal Reg. No.01 of 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents. 3. The appeal preferred against the judgment of the trial Court is stated to be pending adjudication and is now stated to be listed on 18.08.2025 for further orders. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:19147 ) 4. By virtue of the impugned order dated 24.07.2024, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code has been disposed of. 5. It is a well settled position of law that an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to an authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, 2012(8) SCC 148. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced here-in-below:- “49. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Vide: Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 193; and Natha Singh & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1053). 3 ( 2025:HHC:19147 ) 6. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal Reg. No.01 of 2023, is quashed and set aside. The First Appellate Court is directed to consider the application at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 7. In view of above terms, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, on 10.07.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) June 20, 2025 (KS) Judge