JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The Plaintiff in Original Suit No. 69 of 1983 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore is the Petitioner in this Civil Revision. In the suit, the Plaintiff claimed right, title and interest in respect of the suit property and also for a declaration that the sale deed executed by one Bijaya Devi in favour of the Defendants was a void document. The allegation in the plaint was that Bijaya Devi was not the wife of Bansidhar and she had no right in law to make the alienation of the property in favour of the Defendants. An issue was framed in the suit specifically stating if Bijaya Devi was the wife of Bansidhar and the Plaintiff was the daughter of said Bansidhar through Haramani who is said to be the wife of Bansiclhar. The Plaintiff succeeded in the suit. In the appeal preferred by the Defendants which is now pending in the appellate stage, an application was filed by the Defendants Appellants under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC with a prayer to make the voters list as additional evidence in the case. In the said petition the Defendants Appellants averred that they were strangers to the area and they have no knowledge about the existence of such a voters list wherein the name of Bijaya Devi was shown as the wife of Bansidhar and after having come to know of this document after the decree in the suit they have made this application for acceptance of this document as additional evidence. The Appellants Court by order dated 31-7-1990 passed in S.J.A. No. 23 of 1988-I, allowed the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC and allowed four voters lists to be made part of the additional evidence in the case and marked them as Exts. C, D, E and F. Against the said order, this revision has been preferred by the Plaintiff. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the impugned order cannot be maintained in view of the provisions contained under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC which reads as follows: (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the impugned order cannot be maintained in view of the provisions contained under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC which reads as follows: (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. But if: (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that not withstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 3. According to the Petitioner, the documents could have been made available even before passing of the decree in the suit and the Defendants were absolutely negligent and not diligent in procuring this document for production before the Court. As such, the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to allow the petition permitting the documents as per Exts-C, D, E and F as additional evidence in the case. In a case reported in K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: Apart from this, it is well to remember that the appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment" but also for any other subtantial cause. There may well be cases where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence" to enable it to pronounce judgment", it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will he one for allowing additional evidence "for any other substantial cause" under Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code. In the same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held as follows: It is worth noticing that when the 1908 Code was framed and Order 41, Rule 27 took the place of the old Section 568, the legislature was content to leave the provision 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 Rule 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 does not vitiate such admission. In a recent case reported in Kishan and Another Vs. Narain Dass and Others, it has been held as follows: Under Clause (b) of Rule 27 of the order 41 of CPC the appellate Court can receive additional evidence not only when it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment bat also for any other substantial cause. There may well be causes where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce the judgment on the state of record as it is, and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be fined up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. 4. The law is well settled that the procedural technicalities should not come in the way of justice. This was the view taken in a case reported in Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. The 3rd Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahar and others, while discussing the applicability of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC to the revisional Court. In the present case, the appellate Court has been satisfied that the Defendants-Appellants had knowledge about those documents earlier but they could only be procured during the proceedings in appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, has brought to my notice a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Rajkishore Panda and Another Vs. Banitia Madhya Engrajee Bidyapitha and Others. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, has brought to my notice a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Rajkishore Panda and Another Vs. Banitia Madhya Engrajee Bidyapitha and Others. The decision of the case applies to the facts of that case and does not raise any legal proposition for quashing the impugned order. In the present case the Court was not exercising its power under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) of the CPC but under Order 41, Rule 27(aa) in allowing the documents as an additional evidence in which case it is not required by the Court to wait till the hearing of the case in appeal to exercise such power as is required under Clause (b) of Order 41, Rule 27(1) Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In view of what is stated above, the civil revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs of this revision. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed