Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010200142026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/446/2026 HARUN RASHID AND ANR S/O LATE SIRAJUDDIN, R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI, MOUZA- DHING, P.S.- DHING, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM 2: IDRISH ALI S/O LATE SIRAJUDDIN R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA- DHING P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSA VERSUS ABUL KASEM AND 7 ORS. S/O LATE ABUL HASEM, R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI, MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM 2:FIRUJA KHATUN W/O LATE ABUL KASEM R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 3:RAJIB ALI S/O LATE ABUL KASEM R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 4:NEKIBUR RAHMAN S/O LATE ABUL KASEM Page No.# 2/4 R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 5:SAMSUDDIN AHMED S/O LATE ABUL KASEM R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 6:ALOM S/O HUSSAIN ALI R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 7:ABDUL KHALEK S/O HUSSAIN ALI R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 8:MAINUDDIN S/O SAMSUL HAQUE R/O VILL- DHING BORBHETI MOUZA AND P.S.- DHING DIST- NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 3/4 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. J.C. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nagaon in Title Appeal No.16/2025. 3. The petitioners being the appellants before the trial court filed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking leave to adduce additional evidence by producing original sale deed being Sale Deed No.201/1998. The appellate court dismissed the prayer of the appellant. 4. Mr. Borah has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148. Paragraph 52 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that 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 the final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, 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 inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.” Page No.# 4/4 5. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Borah. 6. When an application under Order 41 Rule 27 is filed in an appeal, it should be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 7. The trial court is directed to consider the prayer of the petitioners at the time of hearing the final argument of the appeal. Thereafter, the appellate court shall pass necessary order(s). With the aforesaid direction, the present revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant