t£ 0 Order oaseNo-!!,.`.4`lf>.33-d..a.9.\.)..'............- (s) with Signature (s) BEFORE N'BLE MR. JUISTICE S.P. WANGDI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE .02. SGPG- 11.08.1 Present: Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rashmita Rai, Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, Ms. Mukul R.Para].uli and Ms. Dawa Jangmu Sherpa, Advocates for the petitioners, . Mr. K.T. Bhutia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bandana Pradhan, Advocate for respondent NOL.1. Mr. J.B. Pradhan, ,Addl. Advocate • General with Mr. Karma Thinlay, Govt. Advocat:e and Mr. S,K. Chettri, Asstt, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 to Heard Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel for t:he petitioners and Mr. K.T. Bhutia, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the St:ate respondents No.2 to4. During the course of the arguments, Mr. K.T. Bhutia, learned Senior Counsel referred to Paragraph 4 of the case of State of Rajasthan vs. T,N. Sahani & Ors. ..(2001)10 SCC 619 and submitted that in view of the position of law laid down in that case, all that can be done in the present proceedings is that the learned Appellate Court can be directed to consider t:he application under Order XLI Rule .27 while disposing of the main appeal. Relevant case of State of Rajasth •,I;c]rt of Paragraph 4 of the n vs.` T.N. Sahani & Ors. (2001)10 SCC 619 is reproduced below:- 3/ High Court/ 5000 Nos/ 2.4.2009 caseNo..4/../.C.a.I.9..e±..2<g..1.,I..I......„ tl e S-efralN-o i_i_ate Order (s) with Signature (§) ``4. It may be pointed out that this Court as Ion.g back as in 1963 in K. Venkafaram/.aft v. Seetharama Redc/y pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required t:o enable it t:o pronounce the judgment, it still considered. that in the interest of ].ustice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the court to consider at the time of hearing of the appe`al on merits whet:her looking int:o the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the .court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the.appeal." Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General concurred with the submissions of Mr. K.T. Bhutia and submit:ted t:hat this view has already been accepted by this Court in its decision in RFA No.7 of 2006 (Sonam Gyatso Bhutia vs. The State of Sikkim & Ors. where t:he same view had been taken. In view of the .above, t:his petition stands disposed of wit:h a direction upon the learned Appellate Court to consider the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of t:he C.P.C. filed by the petition`ers denovo. While hearing the appeal, the learned Appellate Court shall take into consideration the relevance of the documents to the matter /.n //.s in the suit. The parties are at liberty to place all their submiss`ions in this regard before the `Iearned Appellate Court with a direction that the SGPG- 3/ High court/ 5ooo Nos/ 2.4.2oog \, t) CaseNo..4J.¢.CQ„J.?#..2.9.(J..„........ SGPG- 3/ High CouW 5000 Nos/ 2.4.2009