JUDGMENT 1. :- This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Addl. Civil Judge No. 2. Jaipur City, dated December 12, 1983, whereby he dismissed the appeal against the order vacating injunction passed by the Munsiff (East) Jaipur City, dated September 1, 1977. I do not intend to detail the facts of the case as the entire revision petition is disposed of on a very short ground namely consideration of extraneous circumstances not existing on record by the trial court only in a suit for permanent injunction. When a temporary injunction was granted opportunity was given to both the parties to submit documents and affidavits. The same have been filed by the petitioners and the non-petitioners. The order of the learned Munsiff, dated September 1, 1977 refers to an admission. of the petitioners in a written statement alleged to have been filed by them in some earlier suit. The same has been again referred to in the appellate court's judgment as it was the basis for vacating the injunction. The entire record of both the courts below was called for by this court and it is unfortunate and regrettable that the trial court referred to a document which was never the part of the record. I fail to understand as to how and from where he derived knowledge by a document which was not a part and parcel of the entire record existing before him. Such sort of practice of referring a document which does not form the part of the record can only be deprecated. I cannot substitute my own judgment on the document which otherwise would have been considered by the trial court in case it would have been before him. Any order passed on consideration of such a document is an illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and cannot be permitted to stand on record. The appellate court has also been influenced by the order of the trial court when it makes a reference to the same. However this written statement is sought to produce before the appellate court on December 12, 1983 when this appeal was pending before the Civil Judge since 1977 withholding the document for six years and then filing in appellate court is un-understandable. For all these reasons I have no hesitation in holding that the orders of both the courts below require consideration afresh. 2. For all these reasons I have no hesitation in holding that the orders of both the courts below require consideration afresh. 2. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners has placed reliance on Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur : AIR 1977 Raj. 196 , Lakshminarasimhiah & Or. v. Yalakki Gowda : AIR 1965 Mysore 310 and Wellakutty v. Karthyayani & Anr. : AIR 1968 Kerala 179 . All these authorities are in reference to refusal of injunction to a party who does not come to the court with clean hands. It was for the trial court to have considered this matter at the time of granting or refusing injunction. Since I am accepting this revision-petition on the ground that extraneous considerations have been made by the trial court, the authorities cited above have no relevance. 3. Consequently, I set aside the orders of the learned Munsiff, dated September 1, 1977 and that of the appellate Court, dated December 12, 1983 and remand the case back to the trial court for decision afresh on the materials existed before him. The parties are restored to the position which existed prior to passing of the order, dated September 1, 1977. The revision-petition is disposed of accordingly.Revision allowed. *******