This is an appeal preferred against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner No. II, Aimer, Shri Onkar Singly dated 22.3.61. The learned Additional Commissioner was hearing an appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilwara dated 15.1.60 in a suit for division of a holding. On 31.1.61 an application was presented before him by the learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Jagan Nath Singh, that he wanted to produce a copy of certain receipt dated 23.9.60 and a copy of the order of Deputy Collector, Bhilwara, dated 20.12.41 as additional evidence in the appeal on the ground that the receipt was of a time, subsequent to the filing of the suit and the order of the Deputy Collector was not traceable earlier and the copy thereof could be obtained only on 30.1.61. He wanted permission for the production of these documents in the interests of the "just disposal of the case". The learned Additional Commissioner, Shri Onkar Singh, gave a very strange order on 22.3.61 in this behalf which is re-produced below:– ^^ge ;g equkflc le>rs gS] tks odhy vihykUV us Document isk fd, mlds fjcsVy ds fy, odhy jsLiksUMsUV dks eksdk fn;k tkuk okftc gS vr% eqdnek rk% 25-4-62 dks ceqdke vtesj isk gks vkSj buds fjcsVy esa tks Hkh tokc isk djuk pkgs rkjh[k eqdjZj rd isk djs^^- This order does not state clearly, nor is there any other order on the record to show it, that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence had been allowed to be produced by the learned Additional Commissioner; and still it goes to ask the applicant Chatar Singh to submit anything he wanted to do in rebuttal thereof. O. 41, R. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is the provision of law for the production of additional evidence in the appellate court. Vide sub-R.(l) thereof, an additional evidence can be allowed to be produced by a party to the appeal if :— (a) the court from whom the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Vide sub-R. (2) thereof, it is also mandatory for the Court to record the reasons for the admission of such Additional evidence. The order of the learned Addl. Commissioner is absolutely silent about the compliance of these clear provisions in law. Such an order cannot, therefore, be upheld, nor can the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the learned Additional Commissioner meant only to further hear the parties in order to decide whether the production of the documents under reference should be allowed or not has got force. If this was the intention of the learned Additional Commissioner, he should have so recorded it clearly so that the parties could know very well what they had to do. Besides, such a contingency could have also arisen only when it had been first found by the learned Additional Commissioner that the trial court had refused to admit evidence which ought 1o have been admitted by it. In the terms of the application preferred by the respondent on 31.1.61 itself such a contingency could not be deemed to have arisen, no allegation to that effect having been made by the learned counsel for the respondents making that application. When the permission for the production of additional evidence was not at all sought on the ground of the refusal by the trial court for the admition of any evidence, the only power available to the learned Addl. Commissioner for admitting the additional evidence was that laid down by subclause (b) of sub-R. (1) of O. 41, R. 27. The additional evidence under the circumstances could be taken only when the learned Additional Commissioner himself required the evidence to be produced to enable him to pronounce the judgment or "for any substantial cause" which should have been clearly recorded. The impugned order has, therefore, been passed by the learned Additional Commissioner more in breach of law than observance thereof. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and remand the case to him for proceeding afresh in the matter of the permission of the production of additional evidence in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above.