Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040001802026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/5/2026 Tajom Jempen and Anr Son of Shri Tateng Jempen, permanent resident of Nemasibo Village, PO and PS Monigong, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Pakam-II Village, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Yabang Tapo Age: Occupation : resident of Pakam -II Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Tabo Tapo Son of Late Taro Tapo, resident of Lingok Village, PO and PS Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Pritam Taffo, Rosy C Lowangcha,Tana Rini,Nyainyo Wangjen,Preety Moyong,V Mandal,Minter Karbak,Eho Menjo Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 12.02.2026 Heard Mr. Pritam Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 22.01.2026, passed by the Page No.# 2/5 learned Civil Judge(Sr. Div.), West Siang District, Aalo, whereby, the learned appellate Court by invoking Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 107 and Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while allowing the application filed for production of the additional document, has permitted the appellant to produce a Sale Deed and directed that the same be taken on record as part of the Memorandum of Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the additional document cannot be permitted to be produced at the appellate stage except in strict compliance in accordance with the provisions provided under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order, dated 22.01.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), West Siang District, Aalo, in Civil Appeal, has been passed contrary to the said provisions of law. 4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i). Mahavir Singh & ors. V. Naresh Chandra & anr., reported in 2000 Supreme(SC) 1759, paragraph No. 5. (ii). Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & anr., reported in 2012 Supreme(SC) 465, paragraph Nos. 25 to 29. 5. Upon perusal and consideration of the order, dated 22.01.2026, impugned in this civil revision petition; this Court finds that by the impugned order, dated 22.01.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), West Siang District, Aalo, has merely permitted the production of a document by the appellant/respondent, herein, who stated that although a mention was made, however, the said document (Sale Deed), could not be annexed along with the appeal memo as it was untraceable. From the above, it appears that it was Page No.# 3/5 allowed in exercise of the powers under Section 107 read with Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. The learned appellate Court is vested with such jurisdiction to consider and allow the additional evidence/document if it finds that the same is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. In the instance case it was done in exercise of the powers under Section 107 read with Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has recorded that the document is essential for just and proper adjudication of the dispute. 7. The order impugned in this civil revision petition, is interlocutory in nature. By the said order the appeal was not finally disposed of and it had not determined the rights of the parties either. 8. After the amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; a revision is maintainable only where the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would have finally disposed of the suit or the proceeding of the case. Section 115 CPC being relevant is reproduced below for ready reference: “115. Revision. (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears-- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,…..” 9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.01.2026, it is seen that the same does not satisfy the above-noted requirement as provided under section 115 CPC. The order impugned prima facie appears to be an interlocutory order permitting production of the additional document in the appeal. Page No.# 4/5 10. In the cases of Mahavir Singh(supra) and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, it was held that additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill the lacunae; and the condition under order 42 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must be satisfied. However, it does not lay down that the additional evidence/document can never be permitted at the appellate stage. On the contrary, they recognize the power of the appellate court under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, subject to judicious exercise of discretion and the reason must be recorded. 11. Thus, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Mahavir Singh (supra) and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin(supra), does not assist the petitioner’s case, at hand. 12. In the present case, the appellate Court has exercised such jurisdiction. It has recorded satisfaction that the document sought to be produced by the appellant is necessary for just adjudication. Therefore, the decisions actually support existence of jurisdiction. Whether the discretion has been properly exercised by the appellate court is matter that can be examined, if necessary, in further appeal, but it does not in any case give rise to a jurisdictional error warranting revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. For the reasons stated-above, this Court is of the considered view that the present revision is not maintainable. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.01.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), West Siang District, Aalo, is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Page No.# 5/5 15. Consequently, the prayer for interim stay also stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant