JUDGMENT This is a civil revision filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by District Judge, Jorhat in Misc. (J) Case No.93 of 2013 in Title Appeal No.2 of 2007 which arise out of Title Suit No.26/96 decided by Civil Judge, Jorhat on 27.4.2005. By impugned order, the first appellate court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.Code in his pending appeal before the first appellate Court. So the short question which arise for consideration in this revision is whether the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein in his appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? Facts of the case are short. They however need mention in brief infra. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner being TS 26/96 for declaration, confirmation and injunction in relation to suit land. The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 27.4.2005 dismissed the suit. The plaintiff felt aggrieved filed First Appeal being Title Appeal No.2/2007. It is in this appeal, the petitioner (who was respondent in the appeal) filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking indulgence in filing certain documents, which, according to him, could not be filed before the trial court despite diligence on his part. He also contended that the additional evidence which he now intends to file be taken on record because it is material for determination of the lis between the parties and secondly they were being filed in rebuttal to the documents who was allowed to file the documents in appeal in earlier round of litigation by the orders of the court. This application was heard by the first appellate Judge and by impugned order; it was rejected on its merits. It may be mentioned that the first appeal is still pending for its final hearing. It is against an order rejecting the appellant’s application filed under Order 41 Rule 47 ibid, the appellant (plaintiff) has felt aggrieved and filed this revision Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the respondent. It may be mentioned that the first appeal is still pending for its final hearing. It is against an order rejecting the appellant’s application filed under Order 41 Rule 47 ibid, the appellant (plaintiff) has felt aggrieved and filed this revision Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the respondent. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am constrained to allow the revision and while setting aside the impugned order remand the case to the first appellate court to again decide the application filed by the appellant ( petitioner herein ) on its merits. The need to remand has occasioned due to the reason that appellate court committed an error in deciding the application filed by the appellant under order 41 Rule 27 independently. The law on this point remains no longer resintegra and stands decided by Supreme Court in several cases. In the case reported in (2001) 10 SCC 619 (State of Rajasthan vs T.N.Sahani) and others, their lordship while dealing with the issue as to how the appellate court should decide the application filed under order 41 rule 27 ibid held as under :- “4. It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharmama 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 the record as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so entirely for the court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into 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. 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. Hand the Court found the documents 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. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.” It is, thus, clear from the law laid down by the Supreme Court that appellate court should not decide the application independently but decide the application while hearing the appeal finally i.e. such application should always be decided at the time of hearing the appeal itself. Since the appellate court in this case decided the application independently and not at the time of final hearing of the appeal which is pending and hence the impugned order rejecting the application is not legally sustainable and thus liable to be set aside. In my view, though the appellate court took note of several decisions of Supreme Court, cited at the bar, but did not take note of those, which were directly on the point and nor properly appreciated the law laid down in cases which were cited at the bar. It is apart from the fact that he also did not appreciate the background of the case, which, in my view, should have also been taken into account, while considering the application. In any event, all these issues should have been taken into account, while deciding the appeal finally and not prior to it or/and independently. Hence, interference in the impugned order is called for. In view of foregoing discussion, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside. In any event, all these issues should have been taken into account, while deciding the appeal finally and not prior to it or/and independently. Hence, interference in the impugned order is called for. In view of foregoing discussion, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the first appellate court for deciding the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff in his appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 ibid afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of T.N Sahani (supra). I make it clear that I have not applied my mind to the merits of the issue, which is subject matter of the application, and hence, the appellate court would decide the application at the time of hearing of the appeal on its merits, keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concern. No cost.