Civil Revision No.3537 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No.3537 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.8.2010 Sham Singh …Petitioner Versus Bhim Sain …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Malhar Singh Dhami, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 24.5.2010, passed the following order:- “ C.M. No. 14024-CII of 2010 Allowed, as prayed for. C.R. No. 3537 of 2010 The petitioner – tenant had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence to prove certain information which could have relevant bearing on the disposal of the controversy. The averment, made Civil Revision No.3537 of 2010 2 in the course thereof, was that the petitioner had been able to obtain that information by a resort to the relevant provisions of Right to Information Act. Copy of the application has been placed as Annexure P/1. Annexure P/2 is the reply to that application. The grievance, inter-alia, of the learned counsel that this application had not been disposed of by the learned Appellate Authority while negativing the appeal. Reliance, in support of a plea for remand in such an eventuality, is placed upon Jagir Kaur vs. Nirmal Singh, 1993(2) PLR 375, Shadi Lal and others vs. Municipal Committee, Rewari, 1994(1) PLR 633, Sadhu Ram Verma vs. Pawan Kumar, 2006(2) RCR 95, Rajbir Singh vs. Virender Singh and others, 1996(1) PLR 703, Charan Singh and another vs. Jagtar Singh and others, 1999(1) PLR 719 and Jatinder Singh and another minor through mother vs. Mehar Singh and others, JT 2008(11) SC 30. Notice of motion. 12.07.2010. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall stand stayed, subject to depositing of arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and payment of future rent by 10th of every calendar month”. Civil Revision No.3537 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from petitioner Sham Singh, who is present in the Court, has submitted that the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, while deciding the appeal, has not decided the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence. Thus, a grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner/tenant. In view of the settled legal position, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, to decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence along with the appeal. In view of this, the impugned order dated 27.4.2010, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, to decide the appeal afresh along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence. The Appellate Authority shall do the needful within a period of one month. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 20, 2010 “DK”