( 2026:JHHC:17135 ) 1 C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 ------ Nagendra Nath Oraon, aged about 73 years, S/o Late Sonatan Oraon, R/o Vill-Saparum, Tola Mahadevbera, P.O.-Ichagarh, P.S.- Ichagarh, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand, represented through Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan, having office at -Seraikella, P.O. + P.S.- Seraikella, Dist:-Seraikella-Kharswan, Jharkhand. … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Harsh Utsav, Advocate : Ms. Akriti Aprajita, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA-I : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandil whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge, Chandil has rejected the petition of the plaintiffs-respondents dated 03.12.2025 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 ( 2026:JHHC:17135 ) 2 C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. in Civil Appeal No.29 of 2020 arising out of Title Suit No.24 of 2004. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs/respondents before the first Appellate Court on 03.12.2025 filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. with the prayer to admit the certified copy of the C.S. Khatiyaan and the attested C.S. and R.S. map of the suit land by way of an additional evidence and the same was rejected vide the impugned order by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandil on the ground that the plaintiffs/respondents failed to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed nor the trial Court ever refused to admit such documents in evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148, paragraph-49 of which reads as under:- 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 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 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, ( 2026:JHHC:17135 ) 3 C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 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 [1951 SCC 178 : AIR 1951 SC 193] and Natha Singh v. Financial Commr., Taxation [(1976) 3 SCC 28 : AIR 1976 SC 1053] (emphasis supplied) and submits that it is the mandate of law that an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits; so as to find out whether inter alia the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. 5. It is next submitted that to the same effect, is the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malayalam Plantations Limited vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 13 SCC 487, paragraph-16 of which reads as under:- 16. If any petition is filed under Order XLI Rule 27 in an appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate court to consider at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. It is trite to observe that under Order XLI Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the appellate court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature. (Emphasis supplied) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Wadi Vs. Amilal and ( 2026:JHHC:17135 ) 4 C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 Others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 677, paragraph-5 of which reads as under:- 5. Now it is clear that Rule 27 deals with production of additional evidence in the appellate court. The general principle incorporated in sub-rule (1) is that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence (oral or documentary) in the appellate court to cure a lacuna or fill up a gap in a case. The exceptions to that principle are enumerated thereunder in clauses (a), (aa) and (b). We are concerned here with clause (b) which is an enabling provision. It says that if the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, it may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined. The requirement or need is that of the appellate court bearing in mind that the interest of justice is paramount. If it feels that pronouncing a judgment in the absence of such evidence would result in a defective decision and to pronounce an effective judgment admission of such evidence is necessary, clause (b) enables it to adopt that course. Invocation of clause (b) does not depend upon the vigilance or negligence of the parties for it is not meant for them. It is for the appellant to resort to it when on a consideration of the material or record it feels that admission of additional evidence is necessary to pronounce a satisfactory judgment in the case. (Emphasis supplied) and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. and where it can be resorted to and therein it has been held that when on a consideration of the material or record, the appellate court feels that admission of additional evidence is necessary to pronounce a satisfactory judgment in the case then even if the requirement of Rule (a), (aa) of Order XLI of Rule 27 of C.P.C. is not made, still such document can be admitted in evidence by way of additional evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Mossamat Chintamani ( 2026:JHHC:17135 ) 5 C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 Devi and Others vs. Lalan Chaubey and Another passed in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.35 of 2022 dated 25.07.2024 to the aforesaid effect also. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant C.M.P, be allowed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant C.M.P and submits that since the plaintiffs/respondents are admitting that without the plaintiff producing all the relevant documents still the decree has been passed in his favour, so in effect, the plaintiff is submitting that the impugned decree is not sustainable in law. Therefore, it is submitted that this C.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this court do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner intends to adduce some additional evidence that will amounts to concession on the part of the petitioner that the decree impugned before the first Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. 10. Be that as it may, it is a settled principle of law as already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement, that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. is to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. One of the reason therefor, is that so that the first appellate court can appreciate whether the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence enables the ( 2026:JHHC:17135 ) 6 C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 appellate court to pronounce the judgment or the same is required to any other substantial cause; as mentioned in Rule 27(b) of Order XLI of the C.P.C. 11. As already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, it is the settled principle of law that if the documents satisfies the requirement of Rule 27(b) of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if the requirement of the Rule 27(a), 27(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not satisfied, still such document can be produced and accepted as evidence by way of additional evidence; of course, after following the proper procedure for adducing such additional evidence. 12. The undisputed facts remains that the learned first appellate court has not taken up hearing of the appeal but before that it has took up the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. and it is apparent that since it was not hearing the appeal, so merely because the plaintiff/respondents could not satisfy the requirement of Rule 27(a) & 27(aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure, hence, it has rejected the petition, without considering whether the said documents satisfies the requirement as envisaged under Rule 27(b) of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 in Civil Appeal No.29 of 2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandil is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed and set aside. ( 2026:JHHC:17135 ) 7 C.M.P. No.484 of 2026 14. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandil is directed to pass a fresh order on the petition filed by the plaintiff/respondents dated 03.12.2025 before it, at the time of the hearing of the appeal and to consider the applicability in this case of Rule 27(b) of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure also. 15. In the result, this C.M.P., is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of June, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 16/06/2026