JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This revision is directed against the order dated 30-10-1972 passed by Sri G.S. Seth, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, on an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff appellant in Appeal No. 560/190 of 1971-72 of district Sitapur. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The only question of law involved in this revision is whether when an appellate court allows additional evidence to be produced it is bound to record reasons for such admission or not. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has propounded the view that omission to record reasons does not vitiated the order. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in K. Venkatraramaiah v. Seetharam Reddy, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1526 in which the following observations have been made: "It is very much to be desired that the courts of appeal should not overtook the provisions of Cl. (2) of the Rule and should record their reasons for admitting additional evidence. We are not prepared, however, to accept the contention of the appellant that the omission to record the reason vitiates the admission of the evidence. Clearly, the object of the provision is to keep a clear record of what weighed with the appellate court in allowing the additional evidence to be produced whether this was not done on the ground (1) that the court appealed from had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (ii) it allowed it because it required it to enable it to pronounce judgment in the appeal or (iii) it allowed this for any other substantial cause. Whether a further appeal lies from the decision of the appellate court such recording of the reasons is necessary and useful also the Court of further appeal for deciding whether the discretion under the rule has been judicially exercised by the court below. The omission to record the reason must therefore be treated as a serious defect. Even we are unable to persuade ourselves that this provision is mandatory. The omission to record the reason must therefore be treated as a serious defect. Even we are unable to persuade ourselves that this provision is mandatory. For, it does not seem reasonable to think that the legislature intended that even though in the circumstance of a particular case it could be definitely ascertained from the record why the appellate court allowed additional evidence and it is clear that the power was properly exercised within the limitation imposed by the first clause of the Rule all that should be set at naught merely because the provision in the second clause was not complied with. It may be mentioned that as early as 1885 when considering a similar provision in the corresponding section of the Code of 1882, viz, S. 586, the High Court of Calcutta held that this provision for recording reasons is merely directory and not imperative, Gopal Singh v. Jhakri Rai, I.L.R. 12 Cal. 37. We are aware of no case in which the correctness of this view has been doubted. It is worth noticing that when the 1908 Code was framed and O.I, R. 27, took the place of the old Sec. 568, the legislature was content to leave the provisions as it was and did not think it necessary to say anything to make the requirement of recording reasons imperative. It is true that the word "shall" is used in R. 27 (2), but that by itself does not make it mandatory. We are, therefore, of opinion that the omission of the High Court to record reasons for allowing additional evidence was not visits such admission." 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has, on the other hand, cited a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in "Sitya Improvement Trust Board Bangalore v. H. Narayanaiah, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2403. which contains the following observation; "The Karnataka High Court has, however, not complied with provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, of C.P.C. which require that an appellate court should be satisfied that the additional evidence is required to enable them either to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. which contains the following observation; "The Karnataka High Court has, however, not complied with provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, of C.P.C. which require that an appellate court should be satisfied that the additional evidence is required to enable them either to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It has recorded no reasons to show that it had considered the requirements of Rule 27, Order 41 of the C.P.C. We are of opinion that the High Court should have recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for some substantial reasons. And if it found it necessary to admit it an opportunity should have been given to the appellate to rebut any inference arising from its existence by leading other evidence." 6. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 27, Order 41 C.P.C. is very specific; "Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court, the Court shall record the reasons for its admission." In my view, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. page 2403 should be followed as it is more recent. It will also be in the interest of justice and would not cause grievance to any party if the appellate court records reasons for admission of additional evidence. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner, in the present case, has thus committed material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in not recording the reasons for admission of additional evidence. As a result, I hereby the revision, set aside the impugned order, and direct that the learned Additional Commissioner shall decide the application of the plaintiff-appellant for production of additional evidence afresh in accordance with law and shall record reasons in his order.