K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of LA. No. IV filed in LRAA. No. 35-77-78 before the Land Reforms Appellate authority, Kodagu, wherein the petitioner had prayed for issue of summons to the village accountant of Peraje village to produce the original RTC register and to speak about the entries made therein etc. The Appellate authority observed that the petitioner has not explained as to why she did not summon the village accountant and the RTC book before the Tribunal. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order rejecting her I. A. No. II. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that a single revision petition challenging the orders on I. A. Nos. II and IV is not maintainable and there ought to have been two revision petitions. This is a technical plea. The trial court has passed a common order on I. A. Nos. 2 and 4. The revisional power of this Court is under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, wherein this Court may suo motu exercise the power of revision, apart from being invoked by a party concerned. Therefore, without reference to this contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, I have gone into the question on merits. However, I find the order made on LA. No. II is unassailable. ( 3 ) UNDER the Karnataka Land Reforms act formerly there was no appeal forum provided against the orders of the Land tribunal. The Land Tribunal consisted of the Asst. Commissioner and other nominated members, who may or may not have any legal qualification. The parties were not permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Land Tribunal. The parties had to present themselves then causes. A large number of litigants, having regard to the nature of the dispute involved, are necessarily drawn from rural areas and a substantial section thereof are either illiterate or ignorant; at any rate, these litigants will not be in a position to assert themselves before the members of the Land tribunal. Judicial notice of the fact also may be taken that several thousands of orders of the Land Tribunals in the State were set aside by this Court because the Tribunals failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law. Judicial notice of the fact also may be taken that several thousands of orders of the Land Tribunals in the State were set aside by this Court because the Tribunals failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law. ( 4 ) HAVING realised the need to have an appellate forum, recently the State legislature amended the law and provided for an appeal to the Appellate Authority which consists of a Judicial Officer of the rank of a Civil Judge and a Revenue Officer of the rank of a dy. commissioner. The Appellate Authority is specifically precluded from remanding any case thereby imposing a duty on it to decide the case itself. At the same time provision has been made for admitting additional evidence. Scope of the power of the Appellate Authority to admit additional evidence or call for additional evidence will have to be judged with reference to the aforesaid historical background, as to the nature of the land Tribunals, the quality of the litigants and the lack of opportunity to be represented by legally trained persons. ( 5 ) IN pursuance of the provisions providing for- the additional evidence to be taken by the Appellate Authority, Rules are framed, which are part of the Rules called the 'karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority rules, 1986' (for short 'the Rules' ). The relevant part of Rule-9 pertaining to the taking of additional evidence reads as follows:-"9. Hearing and production of additional evidence: xx xx (1 to 3 omitted) (4) The parties in an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary before the appellate Authority. The relevant part of Rule-9 pertaining to the taking of additional evidence reads as follows:-"9. Hearing and production of additional evidence: xx xx (1 to 3 omitted) (4) The parties in an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary before the appellate Authority. But if - (i) the Tribunal from whose order the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (ii) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of the due deligence, be produced by him at the time when the order appealed against was passed; or (Hi) the Appellate Authority requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other sub-stantial cause; or (iv) the Appellate Authority considers it necessary so to do in the ends of justice, the Appellate Authority may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined"xx xx (5 to 7 omitted) ( 6 ) THERE is no difficulty in applying the first two sub-clauses of Rule 9 (4 ). Even Rule 9 (4) (iii) also may not be difficult of application and interpretation. There is scope for some interpretation in respect of sub-clause (iv), to say, as to when the Appellate authority shall consider it necessary to admit additional evidence "in the ends of justice. " it is here the Appellate Authority will have to approach the problem afresh without unduly restricting the exercise of its power by drawing any guidance from similar phraseology found in the Code of Civil Procedure or elsewhere. The concept of justice, especially in the matter of procedure, will very depending upon the circumstances. A litigant, who had the benefit of engaging an Advocate to participate in a trial of a suit in a Civil Court and the circumstances under which a Civil suit is litigated cannot be compared to a proceeding before the Land tribunal, as already observed by me above. For the first time the litigants are allowed to engage a counsel before the Appellate Authority. The sc'ope of the procedure has been vastly altered by the amendment to the Act as also by the rules. For the first time the litigants are allowed to engage a counsel before the Appellate Authority. The sc'ope of the procedure has been vastly altered by the amendment to the Act as also by the rules. When the litigants get fresh advice as to how the cause will have to be established, there is no reason why the Appellate authority should deny a party opportunity to lead additional evidence, so that justice, according to the particular litigant, can be attained, especially in respect of the cases which are tried by the Land Tribunals, before the Advocates were permitted to represent the parties before the Land Tribunal (by virtue of the decision of the Supreme court recently ). I consider that sub-clause (iv) of clause (4) of Rule 9 will have to be broadly and liberally construed to enable a party to adduce further or additional evidence, unless the conduct of the party is so perverse that permitting of such additional evidence will be just to procrastinate the proceedings. ( 7 ) BEARING the above principle in mind, I am of the view that the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner made on I. A. No. IV is the result of a wrong approach. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow this revision petition to the extent of reversing the order of the Appellate Authority on I. A. No. IV before it, and direct the Appellate Authority to permit the petitioner to adduce additional evidence sought in I. A. No. IV. --- *** --- .