Court No. 6 (265719) 18.08.2026 (AD 4) (S. Banerjee) CO 2684 of 2026 Bimal Kumar Pavan Kumar Vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Ms. Rajshree Kajaria Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Subhajit Das …for the petitioner Mr. Kishore Datta, Sr. Advocate Mr. Snehashis Sen Mr. Abhishek Banerjee …for the opposite-party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unauthorized occupant and is directed against an order dated June 24, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Alipore in PP Appeal No. 4 of 2006. By the order impugned the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, stood rejected. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was taken up for hearing in isolation with the hearing of the appeal and the same has been rejected, which is not permissible in law. Mr. Datta, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the opposite-party submits that in the impugned 2 application, the petitioner has also prayed for remanding the matter to the Estate Officer for fresh consideration of the documents which the petitioner sought to rely upon. He submits that the Estate Officer after considering all the materials what were available on record, passed an order of eviction. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. It is now well-settled that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code has to be decided along with the appeal as it is only at that stage the Court can decide as to whether the additional evidence that was sought to be produced, is necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in an more satisfactory manner or not. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan –Vs.- T. N. Sahani & Ors., reported at (2001) 10 SCC 619. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that taking a view on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code before the hearing of the appeal, would be inappropriate. At this stage Mr. Datta, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the opposite-party/Port authorities raises an objection as to the maintainability of an 3 application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code in an appeal filed under Section 9(3) of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971. On a bare perusal of the order impugned, this Court finds that the issue of maintainability of the said application was neither raised by the opposite- party nor decided by the appellate Court while passing the impugned order. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The application captioned as one under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, stands restored to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Alipore. The learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Alipore is requested to take up the hearing of the appeal along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and to make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal as well as the said application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six working weeks from the next date fixed, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. It will be open to the respective parties to raise all points before the learned Judge of the appellate 4 court and the learned Judge of the appellate court shall consider and decide such issues in accordance with law. This civil revision application accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)