JUDGMENT 1. - This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bharatpur, dated October 18, 1975, whereby the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit was set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial court with the direction that the agreement dated September 29, 1960 produced by the plaintiff's witness Radhe Lal, be admitted in evidence and the case be decided afresh on merits after giving opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove that document and the defendants to rebut that evidence. 2. The document dated September 29, 1960 is said to have been possessed by witness Radhe Lal. When the latter appeared in the witness box, he wanted to produce that document. The trial court refused to admit that document on the following grounds:- (1) that the existence of this document does not find any mention in the list of documents filed along with the plaint under order 7, Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code. Its existence was also not disclosed before the first hearing as required under Order 13 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. (2) that Radhe Lal, who produced the document, is wholly unconnected with the document, (3) that the document is neither a public document nor it is obtained from any judicial record, and (4) that the genuineness of the document doubtful. Dealing with the above grounds, the learned Additional District Judge observed as follows:- "The contention that the genuineness of the document is doubtful and further that it was not produced at proper time nor it was relied upon, is no doubt true, but simply because the document will require proof or that it was not produced at the proper stage, it cannot be rejected if it is otherwise found to be material for deciding the merits of the case on one side or the other." The learned Additional District Judge, acting under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 of Order 41 Civil Procedure Code, admitted the document and remanded the case for rehearing to the trial court, as already stated above. 3. It is in these circumstances, that one of the defendants, namely, Nathi Lal, has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Order 43 rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. 3. It is in these circumstances, that one of the defendants, namely, Nathi Lal, has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Order 43 rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely examined the record specially the document in dispute. 5. It is true that the appellate court was empowered under Order 41 rule 27 Civil Procedure Code to admit additional evidence if it was rendered in the lower court but was improperly rejected. However, the lower appellate court, before admitting additional evidence ought to have satisfied itself that the trial court was unjustified in refusing to admit evidence which the plaintiff, in the present case, intended to produce. The trial court has given substantial reasons for rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff to admit the document in evidence. The lower appellate court is self admitted that the genuineness of the document was doubtful and further that neither the document was produced at proper time nor its existence was disclosed in the list of documents. The mere fact that the document was material in the case, did not very much alter the legal position. What the lower appellate court was required to see before interfering with the order of the trial court, was whether the trial court had judicially exercised its discretion in refusing to admit the document in evidence. In the present case, the trial court and the lower appellate court have both held that the genuineness of the document is doubtful. That being the case, it cannot be said that the lower appellate court acted judicially in interfering with the order of the trial court. 6. To my mind, in the circumstances of the case, there was no justification for the lower appellate court in admitting additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 Civil Procedure Code. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs and the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Bharatpur is set aside. The appeal will how go back to the court of Additional District Judge, Bharatpur, for rehearing and disposal according to law. *******