ORDER : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs/appellants challenging the order dated 3/7/2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.93 of 2003, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. 2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is decided finally at the admission stage. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. J.P. Goyal for the petitioners that the applications of the petitioners for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 were required to be decided by the Appellate Court at the time of hearing of the appeal in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr, (2012) 8 SCC 148 . Hence, the Appellate Court has committed an error in deciding the said applications without examining the merits of the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the legal position, however submits that the petitioners keep on filing applications one after the other to delay the proceedings and the appellate court has rightly rejected the said applications. 4. At the outset, the legal position as regards consideration of the application under Order 41, Rule 27 settled by the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr (supra) is required to be reproduced. It is held by the Apex Court, as under :- "49. An application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Vide: Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors., and Natha Singh & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Ors.,). .............. ............. 52. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored...." 5. In view of the above stated settled legal position, the Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Appellate Court was required to deal with the applications under Order 41, Rule 27 at the time of final hearing of the appeal and not before that, and that too without examining the merits of the appeal. 6. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. However, it is directed that the said applications shall be heard and decided afresh by the Appellate Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal on merits. Since the appeal is pending for more than 12 years before the Appellate Court, it is directed that the appeal shall be heard by the Appellate Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of this order. 7. The petition stands allowed accordingly. Since the appeal is pending for more than 12 years before the Appellate Court, it is directed that the appeal shall be heard by the Appellate Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of this order. 7. The petition stands allowed accordingly. By this order, the stay application and other pending application, if any also stand disposed of. Writ Petition Disposed of.