JUDGMENT Shiv Dayal, J. This is Defendant's second appeal against a decree for Rs.996 passed against him. The Respondent's suit was for recovery of Rs.921 as the principal sum and Rs.75 as interest thereon. The basis of the suit was a bond dated Miti Vaishak Badi 2 Samvat 2009 written on Plaintiff's Babi and alleged to have been executed by the Defendant by affixing his thumb impression on it. The Defendant denied the execution of the bond and attacked the suit as actuated by malice and previous enmity between the parties. The trial Judge found that the bond was executed by the Defendant. The Defendant's appeal was disallowed by the Additional District Judge, Bhind. Shri J.P. Gupta learned Counsel for the Appellant first contends that the Plaintiff did not examine himself and for that reason his suit must be dismissed. Reliance is placed on AIR 1927 PC 230. In my opinion this contention cannot be accepted. The Plaintiff produced three witnesses two of whom stated that the Defendant put his thumb impression and the third one stated that he was the scribe of the bond. Courts always bear in mind the omission of a party to examine himself while weighing the evidence produced by it but in a case of this nature it cannot be held that the judgment of the lower Court is contrary to law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure code. The second contention urged by Shri Gupta is that the learned Additional District Judge looked at other entries in the Plaintiff's book which had not been produced in evidence and which were not on the record. The grievance is that the appellate Court thus acted contrary to the procedure and the law of evidence and, further, he first of all created a prejudice in his own mind by the material outside the record and then discussed the evidence of the hand-writing expert produced by the Defendant. This contention is correct inasmuch as the lower appellate Court was not entitled to consider any document which was outside the record. That Court does not say in its judgment that it was admitting them by way of additional evidence under the 27th rule of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure code. This contention is correct inasmuch as the lower appellate Court was not entitled to consider any document which was outside the record. That Court does not say in its judgment that it was admitting them by way of additional evidence under the 27th rule of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure code. Shri Gupta argues that if that extraneous material had been produced in evidence by the Plaintiff, the Defendant would have had an opportunity to show that they were not reliable and also to produce rebutting evidence, if so advised. This argument too has considerable force in it. It is then urged on behalf of the Appellant that the evidence of the handwriting expert was not properly considered by the Courts below. Learned Counsel asks my attention to the observations made by the lower appellate Court about the evidence of the hand-writing expert and argues that the learned Judge has clearly misread it. While the appellate Court has said certainly declare disputed impression the statement of the hand-writing expert is "Ex. A-1 it was no doubt open to the Court to hold that the evidence of the hand-writing expert was not reliable or did not carry conviction but the Court could not misread his statement. Shri Dikshit learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pattabhi Rama Swami AIR 1959 SC 57 and it is urged that this Court cannot go into the question of fact. In my opinion, the defects which I have pointed out above warrant an interference in second appeal and the judgment of the appellate Court cannot be upheld. It has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above cited pronouncement that on questions of fact the judgment of the first appellate Court is final. Their Lordships have nowhere said in that decision that a finding of fact must be allowed to stand even though the first appellate Court has taken into consideration material outside the record. Even in a case where additional evidence has been admitted, but admitted wrongly, this Court can refuse to accept it as a conclusive finding of fact. Their Lordships have nowhere said in that decision that a finding of fact must be allowed to stand even though the first appellate Court has taken into consideration material outside the record. Even in a case where additional evidence has been admitted, but admitted wrongly, this Court can refuse to accept it as a conclusive finding of fact. In this view I am supported by the following observations in the case of Arjunsingh v. Kartarsingh 1951 SCR 258 : AIR 1951 SC 193 : It is no doubt true that a finding of fact, however erroneous, cannot be challenged in a second appeal but a finding reached on the basis of additional evidence which ought not to have been admitted and without any consideration whatever of the intrinsic and palpable defects in the nature of the entries themselves which raise serious doubt about the genuineness, cannot be accepted as finding that in conclusive in second appeal. The case in hand goes still further. Here, evidence not brought on the record even as additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 was considered by the lower appellate Court. No Court of first appeal must forget that a very responsible duty has been cast upon it by the Legislature and when it is the final Court of appeal on facts, any lapse or carelessness in not appreciating evidence properly may lead to such injustice as may be incurable. Therefore a first appellate Court must go through every bit of evidence produced by the parties, apply its mind thoroughly and minutely, and arrive at a definite conclusion whether the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge is correct or otherwise. It must appear from the judgment of the first appellate Court that each and all pieces of evidence have been in fact considered (i.e. nothing escaped its notice) and that nothing outside the record prejudiced the Court. By including unnecessary details the judgment may not be encumbered. The rules for guidance laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court in the various reported decisions must always be kept in mind in the appraisal of oral evidence by an appellate Court. Where a Court of first appeal takes into consideration extraneous material, ignoring the law and procedure, it is an error of law. The rules for guidance laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court in the various reported decisions must always be kept in mind in the appraisal of oral evidence by an appellate Court. Where a Court of first appeal takes into consideration extraneous material, ignoring the law and procedure, it is an error of law. Similarly, saying that a witness's testimony is one while in fact is another, is also an error of law. The judgment of the first appellate Court in the present case suffers from both these errors. The case must therefore be sent back to the lower appellate Court for deciding the first appeal according to law. I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhind. The case shall go back to the lower appellate Court for a fresh decision according to law, after hearing the parties. Costs in this Court shall abide the result of the first appeal. Appeal allowed