M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is against the order dated 7-6-1988 of the Appellate Authority, Bidar, constituted under the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) dismissing I. A. Nos. II, IV, V and VI filed by the appellants. ( 2 ) LA. II was filed under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C. P. C. praying that certain documents may be admitted in evidence by the Appellate Authority. The documents sought to be admitted were the certified copy of the lease deed of the year 1960 and the certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 9-11-1957. LA. IV was filed uder Section 151 of the C. P. C. seeking to lead additional evidence, oral and documentary, as certain documents were still lying in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bidar as well as District Judge, Bidar. I. A. VI was under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C. P. C. and Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 c. P. C. That was also for leading additional evidence. While I. A. III was an application filed by one of the respondents which came to be allowed and the other I. As were dismissed. Therefore the present revision. ( 3 ) THE Appellate Authority has recorded that on 8-7-1987 when the matter was called, counsel for the parties submitted that there was no evidence to lead. It was only when arguments were concluded on both sides and only when appellants' counsel has to exercise his right of reply, the said applications were filed seeking to lead additional evidence. The Appellate Authority rejected the applications solely on the ground that no explanation had been offered by the applicants- appellants before the authority as to why this evidence, oral and documentary was not available when the matter was before the Land Tribunal. Not being satisfied that despite due diligence evidence was not produced earlier, it rejected the applications. By a reading of paragraph 14 of the order under revision, it is clear that before the land Tribunal, certain documents were indeed produced and contentions raised regarding those documents. It was in relation to those contentions and documents produced and in view of total absence of the relevant evidence not having been set out in the affidavit for leading additional evidence, applications have been rejected. It was in relation to those contentions and documents produced and in view of total absence of the relevant evidence not having been set out in the affidavit for leading additional evidence, applications have been rejected. The order under revision is one exercised in the discretionery jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. This court exercising revisional jurisdiction must be cautious before it interferes with a discretionery order. Unless it is demonstrated that order is manifestly unjust or is clearly without jurisdiction or otherwise suffers from illegality which requires to be interfered with this court should not interfere. As these ingredients are not present in the order, it is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this court. Therefore the revision Petition is rejected. --- *** --- .