( 2026:JHHC:21673 ) 1 C.M.P. No.1138 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.1138 of 2025 ------ Narayan Giri, aged about 83 years, son of Late Bhola Giri, resident of village Junauri, P.O. Taranari, P.S. Nawadih (now Chandrapura), District –Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. –Bokaro, District –Bokaro, Jharkhand. 2. The District Fishery Officer, Fishery Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. –Bokaro, District –Bokaro, Jharkhand. 3. The Anchal Adhikari, Nawadih, P.O. and P.S. Nawadih, District –Bokaro, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achyut Keshav, Sr. AAG : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AC to Sr. AAG ------ 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 order dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned District Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat in Civil Appeal No.18 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned District Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat has rejected the petition of the petitioner dated 19.04.2025 filed ( 2026:JHHC:21673 ) 2 C.M.P. No.1138 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer for adducing additional evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is the mandate of law that the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure is to be heard at the time of hearing of the appeal, but the learned District Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat has committed a grave error by deciding the application much prior to the hearing of the appeal and the appeal is still pending in the Court of learned District Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat till today almost a year of rejection of the said petition. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the prayer. 5. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148, paragraph-85.7 of which reads as under:- 85.7. xxxx The first appellate court committed a grave error in deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC much prior to the hearing of the appeal. Thus, the order allowing the said application is liable to be ignored as the same had been passed in gross violation of the statutory requirement. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Appellate Court shall decide the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure at the time of hearing of the appeal, but the same having been passed much prior to hearing of the appeal, hence, the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned District Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat in Civil Appeal No.18 of 2022 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. ( 2026:JHHC:21673 ) 3 C.M.P. No.1138 of 2025 6. The learned District Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat is directed to consider the such petition under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the time of hearing of the appeal afresh. 7. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of July, 2026 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 23/07/2026