ORDER 20.1.2003 — Heard argument, and on consent of both the parties this Civil Revision stands disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission in the following manner. 2. This Civil Revision is filed by the appellant of Title Appeal No. 30 of 1997, presently pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar, as against the order of rejecting the application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. vide the compos¬ite order dated 17.2.2001. 3. Appellant, as the plaintiff, filed Title Suit No.8 of 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Keonjhar, claim¬ing the relief of specific performance as against the Keonjhar Municipal Council and the Collector as the Chairman of the said Council. On 21.4.1997 the suit was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of non-service of a notice under Section 349 of the Municipal Act. In the appeal, petitioner filed an applica¬tion under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. to admit the notice under Section 349 of the Municipal Act as additional evidence on the ground that though such document was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) but inadvertently the same was not intro¬duced into evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the civil revision has been filed as against the composite order passed on 17.2.2001, but the petitioner, so far as the present civil revision is concerned, presses the relief under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. Accordingly, the legality and propriety of the impugned order is considered only with respect to the provision relating to Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. Petitioner made a prayer to accept that additional evidence in accordance with Clause (b) in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41, C.P.C. Learned lower Appellate Court referred to the cases of State Bank of India v. M/s. Ashok Store & Others, 53 (1982) C.L.T. 552; Parbati alias Pagali Devi alias Das v. Duryodhan Samantaray, 69 (1990) C.L.T. 584, and Smt. Sitamani Kar v. Smt. Saraswati Devi and others, 71 (1991) C.L.T. 406, and rejected the application as premature, because the appeal had not been taken up for hearing. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the lower appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularities in as much as in the cited au¬thorities there is no proposition of law that an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. is to be rejected because the appeal has not been taken up for hearing. The opposite parties, however, defend to the correctness of the impugned order. 5. In the case of State Bank of India (supra), this Court, by referring to and relying on various authorities, have pro¬pounded that if a case falls for consideration under Clause (a) or (aa) of Rule 27 (1), then there is no question of invoking the provision in Rule 27 (1)(b). On the other hand, if the provisions in the aforesaid Clauses (a) and (aa) are not applicable, then the Appellate Court may consider whether the case of the peti¬tioner falls within the zone of consideration under Rule 27(1)(b). In that context, this Court has held that such a factum can be considered when the Court applies its mind to the pleadings, the impugned judgment and the relevancy or irrelevancy of the document sought to be introduced as addi¬tional evidence relating to requirement for pronouncing an effec¬tive judgment. That is how this Court laid down the ratio that such question should be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal for better appreciation of the facts and circumstances relating to necessity of additional evidence. In the case of Parbati (supra), since the order was passed by the Court below allowing acceptance of additional evidence under Clause (b) of Rule 27 (1) and since the application was not supported by an affidavit and the documents were not available to the Court for perusal while considering such application, this Court observed that : “6. xx xx xx. Appellate Court is directed to consider the application for additional evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. In case, documents are not produced by that time, or they are not admissible in evidence, question of allowing the applica¬tion would not arise. xx xx xx. Appellate Court is directed to consider the application for additional evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. In case, documents are not produced by that time, or they are not admissible in evidence, question of allowing the applica¬tion would not arise. In case, documents are filed and clear assertions on affidavit are made by the appellant explaining the manner in which he exercised due diligence, the question may be considered after giving opportunity to the respondent to contest the assertions.” In the case of Smt. Sitamani Kar (supra), keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case this Court held that order for acceptance of additional evidence by the lower Appel¬late Court was not called for interference by the revisional Court, and it is not always necessary to defer hearing of the application under Rule 27, C.P.C. till hearing of the appeal. 6. The relevant portion from the impugned order is quoted below : “xx xx xx. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the aforesaid document intended to be admitted as the additional evidence although has been filed in the suit record, the same could not be admitted into evidence from the side of the plaintiff by way of in-advertence and that the said document has the material bearing to the issue No.1 already decided by the trial Court. Thus, the case of the appellant covers the provisions U/o.41 Rule 27 (b) C.P.C. Law is well settled that occasion for the Court to require additional evi¬dence to enable it to pronounce judgment would only arise during the course of hearing of appeal and not before that. The judicial pronouncement of our Hon’ble Court in 53 (1982) C.L.T. 552, 69 (1990) C.L.T. 584 and 71 (1991) C.L.T. 466, may profitably be referred to in this regard. Therefore, this petition is rejected without consideration being pre-mature.” It is thus readable from the aforesaid order of Appellate Court that he has not taken care to read the aforesaid three cited decisions nor he has tried to follow the ratios in the aforesaid three cited decisions and has whimisically disposed of the application for additional evidence by rejecting it. Therefore, this petition is rejected without consideration being pre-mature.” It is thus readable from the aforesaid order of Appellate Court that he has not taken care to read the aforesaid three cited decisions nor he has tried to follow the ratios in the aforesaid three cited decisions and has whimisically disposed of the application for additional evidence by rejecting it. On 17.2.2001 if the Appellate Court was not inclined to decide that application on merit, then the same should have been kept pending for hearing at the stage of hearing of the appeal to consider whether it is a fit case for invoking the provision in Clause (b) of Rule 27 (1) of Order 41, C.P.C. The impugned order in reject¬ing that application as premature thus proves that the Court below exercised the jurisdiction with material irregularity and violating the ends of justice. Under such circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to hear and dispose of that application in accordance with law. At that stage if the appellate Court shall be of the opinion that such additional evidence should be accepted on record, then opportunity of adducing rebuttal evidence be allowed to the opponent, if they shall opt for the same. Since the appeal is of the year 1997, the lower appellate Court shall do well to hear and dispose of the appeal, as far as practicable, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs of litigation. Revision allowed.