application for additional evidence. He has relied upon Charan Singh v. Jagtar Singh reported as 1999(1) PLR 719 wherein this Court has, relying on Premier Automobiles Ltd.,Bombay v. Kabirunissa and others, AIR 1991 S.C. 91, held that it was incumbent upon the Appellate Court to decide an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (prior to or at least simultaneously at the time of pronouncement of judgment on merits). I, however, find that apart from the omission to mention the correct provisions ( which may in itself not be such a serious infirmity) the appellant has nowhere even pleaded the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. No reason has been given by the appellant as to why she could not get the property demarcated during the trial at the time when her evidence as plaintiff was going on. Both the Courts have rightly found that in the face of the specific denial of the respondents to the allegation that the disputed shops were built on any part of the gifted property it was incumbent upon the plaintiffappellant to have linked the property with that gifted by late Lala Hukam Chand. Thus, the argument that by not deciding the application dated 13.1.2006 the judgment of the lower Appellate Court has been rendered totally illegal, is rejected.
