Jheky] lnL;&izkFkh us Hkw izca/k vk;qDr] jktLFkku] t;iqj }kjk vihy la- 16@92 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 6-6-95 ds fo:} jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj esa fuxjkuh izLrqr dh gSA fuxjkuh ds yfEcr jgrs vizkFkhZ la- 1 us vknsk 41 fu;e 27 lifBr /kkjk 151 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 ds rgr ,d izkFkZu i= izLrqr dj mlds lkFk lgk;d dysDVj ¼eq[;ky;½ chdkusj }kjk eqdnek la- 42@97 eq- jkuh cuke iqj[kkjke esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 25-5-2000 dks isk dj vfHkys[k ij fy;s tkus ds fy, fuosnu fd;kA ¼2½ izkFkhZ us mDr izkFkZuk i= dk tokc fnukad 12-3-2004 dks izLrqr dj vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dks fujLr djus dk fuosnu fd;k rFkk izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk izkFkhZ us flfoy U;k;k/khk] ¼dfu"B [k.M½ U;kf;d eftLVªsV] izFke oxZ] chdkusj }kjk QkStnkjh izdj.k la- 502@2003 jkT; ljdkj cuke iqj[kkjke o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 3-2-2004 dks vfHkys[k ij ysus dk fuosnu fd;kA i=koyh fnukad 6-2-2006 dks okLrs cgl izLrqr gqbZA izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us U;k;ky; dk /;ku bl vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k fd vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 5-6-2003 dk fuLrkj.k djuk ckdh gSA vr% vihy ds xq.kkoxq.k ij cgl lquus ls iwoZ mDr izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk,A U;k;ky; us i{kdkjksa dks fuxjkuh ds xq.kkoxq.k ij cgl djus dks dgk] ijUrq izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk us fuosnu fd;k fd igys vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk,A ¼3½ ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us bl fcUnq ij fd vihy Lrj ij izLrqr nLrkostksa dks dc ns[kk tk;sxk] ij foks"k :i ls fopkj dj LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke Bh-,u- lgkuh ¼2001 ¼10½½ ,l-lh-lh- 619 vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA "It may be pointed out that this Court, as long back as in 1963 in K. Benkataramaih vs. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526 , 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 record as it was, and so, it could not require additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment. It still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filed up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. It still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filed 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 appeal on merits, whether the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be looked into to pronounce its judgment, in more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the document and for the purpose, amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(b), CPC can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27(b) should have been decided alongwith the appeal. Had the Court found the document necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner, it would have allowed the same if not the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view would be inappropriate........." mijksDr U;kf;d fl}kUr ds ifjisz{; esa ;g Li"V gS fd ;g lqfufpr djuk U;k;ky; dk vf/kdkj gS fd D;k vknsk 41 fu;e 27 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds ek/;e ls izLrqr fd;s tkus okys nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij fookn dk fuLrkj.k lE;d :i ls fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj nLrkost fu.kZ; esa lgk;d gS vFkok bu nLrkostksa dh izdj.k esa fuLrkj.k esa dksbZ mi;kfxrk ugh gSA U;k;ky; ds fy, ;g rHkh laHko gS tc og izdj.k ds xq.kkxq.k dk iwoZ ijh{k.k djs] blls iwoZ izdj.k ij fdlh izdkj dk fu.kZ; mfpr ugh gksxkA vr% izkFkhZ dh izkFkZuk fd vknsk 41 fu;e 27 lifBr /kkjk 151 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 ij vknsk fuxjkuh dks xq.kkxq.k ij cgl lquus ls iwoZ fd;k tk,] vLohdkj dh tkrh gSaA vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= o mlds }kjk izLrqr nLrkost dks fuxjkuh ds xq.kkxq.k ij cgl ds Lrj ij ijh{k.k fd;k tk,xk rFkk i=koyh okLrs cgl fdlh Hkh ,dyihB d le{k fnukad 20-2-2006 dks izLrqr gksA ¼4½ vknsk [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA