1 . ( 2026:HHC:12731 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.168 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 Jangsher Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. None for the remaining respondents. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner-Jangsher Singh has approached this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court). 2. Vide order dated 12.11.2025, learned Appellate Court, has dismissed the application, under Order 41, Rule 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 . ( 2026:HHC:12731 ) 27 of CPC, moved by the petitioner, in the pending appeal, titled as Jangsher Singh and others versus State of H.P. 3. By way of the application, under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, applicant-Jangsher Singh has sought indulgence of the learned Appellate Court, to permit him to produce the Jamabandi for the year 1950-1951, at Mauza Devni, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. The said document is stated to be relevant, for the just adjudication of the case. 4. The application has been contested by the State by filing the reply. The learned Appellate Court, vide order dated 12.11.2025, dismissed the application, on the ground that no useful purpose would be served, by taking this document, on record and the document is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 5. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the approach of the learned Appellate Court, is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Malayalam Plantations Limited versus State of Kerala and another, 3 . ( 2026:HHC:12731 ) reported in (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 487. According to learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, is to be decided, at the time of final adjudication of the appeal. 6. In this regard, para-16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “16. If any petition is filed under Order 41 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 in the issues involved. It is trite to observe that under Order 41, 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.” 7. In view of the above, on the technical ground, the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, the order dated 4 . ( 2026:HHC:12731 ) 12.11.2025, is ordered to be set-aside and the learned Appellate Court, is requested to decide the application, at the time of final hearing of the appeal, by taking into consideration the contents of the application, as well as, the stand of the respondents. Ordered accordingly. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge April 21, 2026 (subhash)