Civil Revision No. 1264 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1264 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2009 Smt. Surjit Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus Bhupinder Singh Waraich ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track, Jalandhar, dismissing an application moved by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners herein challenged the judgment and decree said to have been suffered by them in a suit for specific performance. The decree was challenged on the plea of fraud and mis-representation. The learned trial Court did not agree with the plaintiff/petitioners and dismissed the suit. In appeal, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was moved Civil Revision No. 1264 of 2008 (O&M) -2- to place on record additional documents, claiming that the documents were necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties and would be helpful to the Court to arrive at correct decision. The application was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Eastern Equipment & Sales Ltd. Vs. Ing. Yash Kumar Khanna, 2008(3) PLR 689, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under: - “5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that in order to decide the pending appeal in which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed ought to have been taken by the appellate Court along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter and without going into the merits as to whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code was rightly rejected by the Appellate Court as well as by the High Court, we set aside the order of the High Court as well as of the appellate Court rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we direct that the appellate Court shall decide the pending appeal along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on merits within a period of three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to the appellate court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. 6. The view that we have expressed can be supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Jaipur Civil Revision No. 1264 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Development Authority vs. Kailashwati Devi, 1997(7) S.C.C. 297. 7. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is kept open to be decided by the appellate court while deciding the appeal.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the learned lower appellate Court to consider the application for additional evidence along with the main appeal, at the time of arguments. Keeping in view the fact that the appeal is pending since 2004, the learned lower appellate Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 13, 2009 R.S.