Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The argument aforesaid, though attractive, to distinguish the judgments in Gurdev Singh as well as in Mahavir Singh as both referring to Clause (b), does not, if the judgments are to be carefully examined, makes out a case for the law laid down in the said judgments to be not applicable to the cases covered under Clause (a) & (aa). The stream of reasoning running through the said judgments is the power of the appellate court. The power vested in Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is of the appellate court and not of the revisional court or the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Other reasoning is that the order is challengeable along with the decision in the appeal and not independently. In that respect, it is immaterial whether the application is made under Clause (a)/(aa) or under Clause (b). I also find that the hearing on an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC would literally be a hearing on the entire appeal. Today, when the courts are overburdened, even otherwise it is not a fit course of action to fragment the proceedings and thereby add a tier/stage of litigation to our already existing system of multi tier litigation intended to do away with a human error. The appellate court may in a given case even though finds a case under Clause (a) or (aa) to have been made out may still not call for or allow additional evidence if otherwise convinced with the appeal on the material on record. It is for this reason also necessary that the applications are heard along with the hearing of the appeal and which is also the dicta of the Supreme Court in Eastern Equipment & Sales Ltd.