Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) Petitioner -defendants have laid this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned order dt. 10.04.2014 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Paragraph (for short, 'learned appellate Court'). By the order impugned the learned appellate Court has rejected their application under Order 41 Rule 27 for taking additional evidence on record without considering the same at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is trite that application for taking additional evidence on record is required to be considered and disposed of at the time of final decision of the appeal and as such, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court, without deciding the appeal finally, cannot be sustained.
(2.) In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v/s. Ibrahim Uddin & Another, : (2012) 8 SCC 148.
(3.) In this verdict, Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC threadbare and also taken into consideration the stage where it is to be decided by the appellate Court. The Court has held: - - "49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the Court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Vide: Arjan Singh v/s. Kartar Singh and Natha Singh v/s. Financial Commr. Taxation.) 52. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that an application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of the final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the Court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, the application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non -application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.";