Court No. 6 (265719) 24.08.2026 (AD 8) (S. Banerjee) CO 2523 of 2026 Firoz Gazi Vs. Sirajul Gazi CAN 1 of 2026 Mr. Dipankar Mondal Ms. Iqra Rahaman …for the petitioner Mr. Anirban Mitra Mr. Amit Halder Mr. Amit Roy Ms. Madhumita Sadhukhan …for the opposite-party Though this matter is appearing under the heading ‘Extension of Interim Order’, but with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the main civil revision application is taken up for final hearing. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant in Title Appeal No. 30 of 2017 and is directed against order no. 45 dated April, 10, 2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – II, at Basirhat, North 24 Parganas. By the order impugned, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 2 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be taken up for hearing and decided in isolation with the hearing of the appeal. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the plaintiff/appellant sought to produce the documents by way of additional evidence at the appellate stage which were withdrawn by them at the trial stage. Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the appellate court, but if the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. Thus, in order to decide whether the said document sought to be produced by way of additional evidence is necessary for the appellate court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, the same ought to have been taken for hearing along with the hearing of the appeal. It is now well-settled that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be heard and decided in isolation with the hearing of 3 the appeal. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff/appellant/petitioner stands restored to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – II, at Basirhat. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – II, at Basirhat is requested to take up the hearing of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code along with the hearing of the appeal and to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the next date fixed, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, nothing remains to be decided in the application being CAN 1 of 2026. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the application and whether the documents are necessary for the purpose of pronounce the judgment or for substantial cause, 4 shall be decided by the appellate court in accordance with law. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)