Order XLI Rule 27 cannot be invoked to compel an adversary to produce evidence for the applicant.

The Appellant (DBPL) filed a review petition against the judgment dated 23.12.2025 (the "Impugned Judgment"), which had dismissed DBPL's appeal against a Single Judge's order dated 17.03.2025.

The original suit for specific performance was settled via a compromise decree on 28.03.2003, for which DBPL received Rs. 1.80 crores.

Decades later, DBPL, now under the management of the "Mehra group," sought to set aside the decree alleging fraud and lack of authority by the previous "Nanda management."

In the review, DBPL contended the Court failed to decide an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and erroneously relied on a precedent not on record.

1. Whether the non-adjudication of an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC at the time of the final hearing constitutes a valid ground for review.

2. Whether the Court can direct a Respondent to produce documents for the benefit of the Appellant under the remit of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.

3. Whether the Reliance on a judgment mentioned in the Lower Court's order but allegedly not on the High Court record provides a basis for review.

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, which permits a party to produce additional evidence in an appellate court only under specific conditions to facilitate the court's adjudication, rather than as a mechanism for a party to compel the opposing side to "collect" or produce evidence for them.

The Court also reinforced the principle that a review is not a "re-hearing" of the merits, and that police reports do not constitute "conclusive evidence" in civil settlements.

The Court noted that while the Order XLI Rule 27 application was not pressed by the Senior Counsel during final arguments, it would address it on merits for the review.

Regarding the prayer to compel Respondent No. 1 to produce bank drafts and possession letters, the Court held that since DBPL's previous management (Nandas) acknowledged receipt of the drafts in court in 2002, the current management (Mehras) must look at their own internal books of account rather than seeking production from the purchaser.

The Court clarified that Order XLI Rule 27 allows a party to "produce" their own evidence, not "direct" the opponent to provide documents to fill gaps in the applicant's case.

Regarding the reliance on Arun Mehra v. Durga Builders (Co. A (SB) No. 7/2006), the Court found it was explicitly cited in the Single Judge’s order, making the Appellant's claim of it being "off-record" meritless.

Finally, the Court dismissed the claim regarding the "Mehra management" control by citing a Supreme Court order where the Mehras had previously expressed reluctance to take over the company's liabilities.

The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed as it sought directions beyond the scope of the provision.

The Court reaffirmed the validity of the 2003 compromise decree, noting that repeated collateral challenges were unsuccessful and no fraud was demonstrated.