1 2025:CGHC:19601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 1016 of 2019 1. Mohd. Arif S/o Late Haji Sukur, Aged About 67 Years R/o Nearby Bami Talab, Main Road, Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh...............Plaintiff 2. Farida Bano W/o Mohd. Arif, Aged About 65 Years R/o Nearby Bami Talab, Main Road, Keshkal, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh).............Plaintiff ... Petitioners Versus 1. Thakur Singh Choudhary S/o Ramchandra Choudhary, Aged About 45 Years R/o Main Road Nearby Vishrampuri Chowk, Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.............Defendant 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh................Defendant 3. Smt. Rekha Wd/o Late Rajbakhs, Aged About 35 Years R/o Takhatpur Masih Colony, Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh................Defendant 4. Nirmal Kaur W/o Shri Avtar Singh, Through Lrs 4.1 - (A) Lavjeet Kaur S/o Late Avtar Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 648, Ward No. 18, Road No. 4, Sardar Nagar Moga, District Moga (Punjab) 4.2 - (B) Baljet Singh S/o Late Avtar Singh, Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 648, Ward No. 18, Road No. 4, Sardar Nagar Moga, District Moga (Punjab) 4.3 - (C) Sarvajeet Singh S/o Late Avatar Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 648, Ward No. 18, Road No. 4, Sardar Nagar Moga, District Moga (Punjab) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge, Kondagaon in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/2019 dated 23.11.2019 whereby an application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was rejected at the initial stage. 2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 05A/2017 for declaration of title in respect of Survey No. 122 admeasuring 0.90 acres, possession thereof and permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019. Petitioner No. 1/defendant No.1 preferred a regular appeal against the judgment and decree along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The learned District Judge rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC at the initial stage. 3. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the learned Appellate Court committed an error of law while rejecting the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC at the initial stage. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No. 2 would oppose the contention made by Mr. T.K. Jha. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with this issue in the matter of Ibrahim Uddin (supra) in Para-49 held as under:- “49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out 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 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, AIR 1951 SC 193 and Natha Singh v. Financial Commr., Taxation, (1976) 3 SCC 28)” 7. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ibrahim Uddin (supra) and the manner in which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court, the order dated 23.11.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of the law, accordingly, the order is hereby set aside. The learned Appellate Court is directed to decide the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC at the time of the final hearing of the appeal. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. No costs. 9. Interim order granted on 10.01.2020 is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti