JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated September 19, 1972 passed by Sri S.K. Ahmed, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division in Appeal No. 406 of 1970 arising out of a suit under sections 229-B/176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Opposite party No. 1, Jagannath, had filed a suit for declaration of his co-sirdari rights in certain plots and for division of his share in the holding. The trial court by its order dated July 29, 1970 dismissed the suit. He went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application on August, 22, 1970 for permission to file three documents, i.e., Khasra of 1312 Fasli, Khasra of 1287 Fasli and Khatauni, 1359 Fasli, which were very important documents for the just decision of the case. The learned Additional Commissioner after hearing arguments allowed the papers to be filed on payment of Rs. 25/- to be paid to the opposite party. The learned Additional Commissioner also gave thirty days' time to the present revisionists to file evidence in rebuttal, if any. Mahabalia and others, who were defendants in the original suit, have come up in revision against this order. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the order of the learned additional Commissioner is no order in the eyes of law, and the learned Additional Commissioner has acted against the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. He has also argued that there was nothing to indicate that the plaintiff-opposite party had exercised due diligence and could not file the papers before the trial court nor the learned. Additional Commissioner has said that the papers were essential for just and proper decision of the case. The learned counsel has referred to Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others, AIR 1951 S.C. 1 93 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principal. "The discretion given to the appellate Court by O. 41, Rule 27 to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one, but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in that rule. "The discretion given to the appellate Court by O. 41, Rule 27 to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one, but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in that rule. If the additional evidence is allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it will be a case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will, have to be ignored and the case decided as if it is non-existent." He has also referred to Sri Mannarayana Charyulu v. Bhavan Charyulu, AIR 1948 Mad. 348, where a learned Judge of the Madras High Court had observed as follows:- "Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate court the appellate court is bound to record reasons for its admission. Further it has also the consider clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 and find out whether a case is made out for admitting additional evidence. The mere fact that evidence was tendered before the appellate Court would not justify any remand of the case for retrial after framing additional issues." 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party has, on the other hand, referred to Kamala Ranjan Roy v. Baijnath Bajoria, AIR 1951 S.C. 1 , in which a Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "Where the appeal Court allows the additional evidence to be given in order to clear up certain matter and for the purpose of enabling it to come to a proper decision on the point, the matter is fully covered by O. 41, R. 27 Civil Procedure Code, and no objection can be taken to the course adopted by the appellate Court in second appeal as there is no reason to interfere in the exercise of the Court's discretion." He has also referred to Gaya Singh and others v. Name Singh and Others, AIR 1920 Pat. 266, where a Bench of the Patna High Court has held as follows: "If an appellate Court makes a mistake in law in directing evidence to be tendered before it which it is not competent to receive in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, it commits an error of law, but that will not give the party aggrieved by the order the right to invoke the interference of the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code." 6. From the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court and of different High Courts, it is beyond doubt that the matter of allowing additional evidence to be filed is one of judicial discretion of the appellate Court. Unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice in the exercise of judicial discretion by an appellate Court a revisional Court will not interfere in revision. It is of course true that the appellate Court should record reasons for giving permission to file additional evidence, but omission to record the reasons in itself does not cause gross miscarriage of justice if the order is otherwise justified and within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case, it has not been shown that any gross miscarriage of justice would be caused to either party from the production of the extracts from the old revenue records which are public documents. In fact, these documents will be in the interest of natural justice. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionists has also contended that the lower appellate court has not even given an opportunity to file documents in rebuttal, as a result of which the revisionists' interest is likely to be prejudiced. This contention is not correct. The original order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated September 19, 1970 clearly states that 'O.P. is given opportunity of 30 days to file evidence in rebuttal if any'. This portion has been somehow omitted in the certified copy of the order which has been attached with the revision application. This portion of the order shows that proper opportunity has, in fact, been given to the revisionists to file evidence in rebuttal. 8. The result is that the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.