\‘Q/ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Al't.227) No.336 of 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of indie) r v \t Mrs.Meera Jaiswai, counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondents, although sewed. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (ORAL) (9-8-2011) \ 1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of indie the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 6.10.1999 passed by the 1" Additional District Judge. Mahasamund in Civil Appeal No.6A/1 999, whereby the 1" Additional District Judge has rejected the application for taking additional evidence filed :under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure during pendency of the appeal and has adjoumed the'case for further proceeding and also for nnai hearing. l‘ 2. l have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned and other documents med on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of state of Rajasthan v. T.N.Sahani and others reported in (2001) 10 SCC‘619, the appellate Court was under obligation to consider the decide the application at the time of hnal judgment, but by rejecting the application during pendency ofrthe appeal, the Court below has committed illegality. Petitioner SmtDulari Bai, Wlo. shri Siyaram Appeilant 'Chandrakar. aged about 51 yeaIS. Plaintiff Rlo. Clubpara, Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Smt.Bisahin Bai, Wdlo. Shri Sharda Defendants Prasad. ‘aged about 55 years. 2. Dev Kumar, Slo. Shri Sharda Ptasad, aged about 24 years. 3. Ku.Savita, D/o. Shri Sharda Prasad, ‘All R/o. near Baronda Chowk, BTI Road. Mahasamund. Tahsil and 5 District Mahasamund 69° e.2,_ 4. Necessity of additional documents/additional evidence can be decided only at the time of tinal decision and prior to deciding the appeal many, the appellate Court would not be in a positlon to decide ot opine whether any document/additional evidence was necessary for just deciSion of the suit/appeal. . ln the present wse, the Court below has rejected the application during pendency of the appeal and thereby committed illegality. . Consequently, in exercise of supervisory junsdiction. the wnt petition is allowed Order dated 6 10 1999 passed by the 1" Additional District Judger or Mahasamund is hereby quashed The Court below shall decide the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the time of final decision In appeal. No order as to costs. v r Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge