IN TH 227 Murti Tha Hanuman CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU the order d District Ju “Hanuman application been allow impugned submitted t M/s Easte Khanna, 2 Civil Revision No.1840 of 2025 (O & IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR Civil Revision N Date of decision ti Thakur Ji Maharaj Staphit Mand Versus uman and others AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate with Ms. Swati Bansal, Advocate a Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advoca for the petitioner. None for respondents No.1 to HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present revision rder dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P ict Judge, Narnaul in Civil Appeal man and others vs. Murti Thakur cation filed by the respondent under O allowed. Learned counsel for the pe gned order is contrary to the settl itted that as per the judgment of the astern Equipment and Sales Ltd , 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 508, as we O & M) 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH ion No.1840 of 2025 (O & M) cision :-27.03.2026 Mandir Thakur Ji Maharaj …..Petitioner …..Respondents E NIDHI GUPTA te with cate and dvocate o.1 to 3(a) to 3(d) despite service. vision petition is for setting aside ure P-4) passed by the learned ppeal No.120 of 2018 titled as kur Ji Maharaj”, whereby the nder Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has he petitioner contends that the e settled position of law. It is of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ltd. vs. ING. Yash Kumar as well as the judgment of this VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.01 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court in Su 24726 and No.2247 of under Orde along with that adjudi hearing of prejudice to to the respo duly served service, no matter was no represe Court proce record. an applica independen has been c by this Cou considered and necessi Civil Revision No.1840 of 2025 (O & Surender Kumar vs. Uma Dutt a 6 and decision dated 19.12.2024 247 of 2021 titled as “Vijay Pal vs. Um r Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is required to with the main appeal at the time of adjudication of such an application ng of the appeal, is impermissible dice to the petitioner. Vide order dated 26.03.2025, n e respondents. As per the office repor served. On the previous date of heari ce, none had appeared on behalf of er was adjourned to await their appea epresentation on behalf of the respo t proceeds to decide the present petitio Heard learned counsel for the The short question that arises f pplication under Order 41 Rule 2 endently prior to the final adjudication The legal position on the issue een consistently held by the Hon’ble is Court that an application under Ord idered at the time of final hearing of t necessity of additional evidence can be O & M) 2 utt and others, 2025 NCPHHC 2024 passed in Civil Revision s. Umed Singh”, an application ired to be considered and decided ime of final hearing. It is argued cation in isolation, prior to the issible in law and has caused 2025, notice of motion was issued report, all the respondents stand f hearing, i.e. 07.07.2025, despite half of the respondents and the appearance. Even today, there is respondents. Accordingly, this petition in their absence. or the petitioner and perused the rises for consideration is whether ule 27 CPC can be decided ication of the appeal. e issue is no longer res integra. It on’ble Supreme Court as well as er Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be ng of the appeal, as the relevance can be properly appreciated only VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.01 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in the cont application the appeal, allowed the without adv an approac noticed her impugned learned Dis and decide the main a law. March 27 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo Civil Revision No.1840 of 2025 (O & e context of the issues arising in the cation in isolation, without examining ppeal, is not in consonance with the se In the present case, the learne ed the application under Order 41 Ru out adverting to the stage of final adjud pproach cannot be sustained in view o ed hereinabove. Accordingly, the present revisi gned order dated 10.03.2025 (Anne ed District Judge, Narnaul is hereby se The learned first Appellate Co decide the application under Order 41 ain appeal at the time of its final h Pending application(s), if any, 7, 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No O & M) 3 in the appeal. Deciding such an ining its bearing on the merits of the settled principles of law. learned first Appellate Court has 41 Rule 27 CPC independently, l adjudication of the appeal. Such view of the settled legal position t revision petition is allowed. The (Annexure P-4) passed by the reby set aside. late Court is directed to consider rder 41 Rule 27 CPC along with inal hearing, in accordance with if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.01 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document