ORDER U.C. Srivastava, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order passed by III Additional District Judge, Kanpur allowing the revision application filed by opposite parties 3 to 8 against the order passed by the Additional Judge Small Causes refusing to admit additional evidence in form of documents after remand of the case by the revisional court i.e. the Court of Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The parties are related to each other. The plaintiff - opposite parties 3 to 8 filed a suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioners, who contested the same and claimed right and title over the because in dispute as co-sharers. It was also denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 2. Before the trial court i.e. the Judge Small causes, after appraisal of the evidence on record dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Against the said order, plaintiffs filed a revision application which came up for hearing before the III Additional District Judge. Before the revisional court the plaintiffs filed an application that two papers may be admitted by way of additional evidence. The IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur rejected the said application holding that the plaintiffs were aware of the said documents and the case is not covered under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff opposite parties thereafter moved another application for taking live other documents for taking them an record as additional evidence which were rather receipts of house tax etc. The Additional District Judge again rejected the said application disbelieving the reasons given by the applicants. The revision application came up for hearing before the IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur who allowed it and remanded back the case in the trial court holding that the trial court wrongly observed that the plaintiffs had failed to give mutation order of the house in dispute and that further irregularities were also committed by it in net properly reading the evidence on record and in not considering the counter - foils which were on the record which were not duly proved yet were in improperly exhibited. The trial court was directed to give opportunity to the parties to prove the private documents which were exhibited without formal proof. The trial court was directed to give opportunity to the parties to prove the private documents which were exhibited without formal proof. After remand the matter came up for bearing be tore the court of Judge Small Causes. The plaintiffs moved an application for taking 11 more documents on record which included the five documents for which an application was moved by them earlier and was rejected. The grounds stated by them was that the said documents were very material for proper adjudication of the and that by in advertence and ignorance the same could not be filed earlier. The Judge Small Causes rejected the said application on the ground that there was no such direction by the revisional court while remanding the case and that the parties were entitled to prove the documents which were on the record. Against the said order a revision application was filed by the opposite parties though it is not clear under which revision of law it was filed, but according to the learned counsel for the opposite parties it was filed under section 115 Civil Procedure Code. The said revision application was entertained and was allowed revisional court was of the view that the documents prima-facie appeared to be material and in spite of good cause being shown for not filing them earlier would amount to denying the plaintiffs' right to adduce evidence. It was further held that there was no prohibition by the remand order that the parties were not entitled to file additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have come up in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after remand no additional documents could have been admitted on record. Moreover, the documents which were rejected earlier could not be taken on record in this manner. It was further contended that the grounds for admitting additional evidence on record were wanting and in the absence of the same the revisional court could not have taken the documents on record by passing the orders passed earlier in this behalf and without looking into even the relevancy of the documents. 5. It was further contended that the grounds for admitting additional evidence on record were wanting and in the absence of the same the revisional court could not have taken the documents on record by passing the orders passed earlier in this behalf and without looking into even the relevancy of the documents. 5. The revision application was obviously directed against an interlocutory order but the order has not been challenged on this ground, as such, there is no question of allowing the petitioner to challenge the order on a ground which has not even been taken by him in the writ petition during course of argument. So far as the contention of the learned counsel is concerned that the remand order has not been correctly read and the remand order was very clear and specific and parties were entitled to bring private documents on record and no rights were conferred upon the parties to file further evidence and the court was not to take additional evidence, after remand the entire case was at large and there being no prohibition by the revisional court in this behalf the court obviously had jurisdiction to take additional evidence on record provided conditions for the same were satisfied and the admission of the same was not barred at that stage under some other legal principles. It seems that in the interest of justice the revisional court allowed the plaintiffs to file 11 documents mentioned in the application which included the documents for which prayer was rejected earlier. The suit was still pending and their prayer for admitting additional evidence was rejected by the revisional court which had jurisdiction to admit these documents, as such, the revisional court while exercising concurrent power this time exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiffs to file the very same documents on the record. The revisional court had earlier rejected the prayer for taking the five documents on record after taking into consideration the pleas of the plaintiffs and objection to it. The revisional court had earlier rejected the prayer for taking the five documents on record after taking into consideration the pleas of the plaintiffs and objection to it. So far as the six documents are concerned, the court of the Additional District Judge has permitted the plaintiffs file the same and that too at the interlocutory stage, but in view of the f that the litigation is still pending and the parties are to establish their claims as such, even-though their may be some error of jurisdiction but the substantial justice seems to have been done in allowing the revision application for admitting these documents as additional evidence and no interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. 6. In the circumstances stated above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The order passed by the III Additional District Judge for taking the five documents for which the prayer was rejected earlier, a copy of which order is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. VIII, dated 23-7-81 is partly quashed. So far as the admission of other documents is concerned, the order dated 23-7-1981 passed by III Additional District Judge, is maintained. In the circumstances of the case the parties bear their own costs.