2025:HHC:31451 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 460 of 2025 Decided on : 12.09.2025 Dalip Singh …Petitioner Versus Joginder Singh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Respondent No.1 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.08.2025. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 11.07.2025, passed by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, Camp at Rohru, in CMP No. 17 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 263 of 2022, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), was dismissed. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31451 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, besides other contentions, submitted that the impugned order is per se not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that as the same was passed by the learned Appellate Court not at the stage of the final hearing of the Appeal, but during the pendency of the Appeal, the same is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He further submitted that even otherwise, the order is perverse as the reasons mentioned in the application as to why the documents appended with the application could not be earlier produced, have been completely ignored by the learned Appellate Court, while rejecting the application. 3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. It is settled law that an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, has to be taken up for consideration by the learned Appellate Court along-with the main Appeal, at the time of the disposal of the main Appeal. In other words, it is in the 3 2025:HHC:31451 course of the adjudication of the main Appeal that said application can be gone into and the contentions of the applicant have to be taken into consideration at that stage only, as to whether the application has to be allowed or not, in the light of the provision of Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC. However, in the present case, learned Appellate Court has committed an error by deciding the application in isolation and by not deciding it at the stage of hearing of the Appeal finally. This Court is making this observation for the reason that a perusal of the order nowhere suggests that it was during the final hearing of the Appeal that the learned Appellate Court was pleased not to allow the application. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148, by placing reliance upon its earlier judgments has held 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 reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was 4 2025:HHC:31451 required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in this judgment that in 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 mine, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/in-executable and is liable to be ignored. 6. Thus it is evident from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, only be taken up for consideration while hearing the Appeal finally and if after appreciating the evidence on record, the Court is of the view that the additional evidence is necessary for the purpose of the pronouncement of the judgment or it meets the other requirements as was spelled out under Order of XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC. 7. Coming back to the facts of this case, as apparently herein, the application was not dealt with by the learned Appellate Court at the stage of the final hearing of the Appeal 5 2025:HHC:31451 but was dealt with earlier and in isolation, the impugned order obviously is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. 8. Accordingly, on this short count, this petition is allowed. Order dated 11.07.2025, passed by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, Camp at Rohru, in CMP No. 17 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 263 of 2022, is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC is ordered to be revived and it is directed that the said application shall be taken up for consideration by the learned Appellate Court at the stage of the final hearing of the Appeal, in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin and another (supra). 9. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 12, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)