SUDHANSHU SEKHAR GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been preferred from the Order No. 19 dated 8. 9. 90 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah in T. A. No. 102 of 1989. ( 2 ) IT appears that the opposite party filed Title Suit No. 393 of 1985 before the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Sealdah for permanent injunction restraining the present defendant/petitioner from disturbing with his peaceful enjoyment of the disputed property. He claimed to have purchased the said property from the owners thereof with the present petitioner and others as tenants in respect of the structures comprising the disputed property. The defence taken by the petitioner was that his father and after his death he himself held the land of the disputed premises as thika tenant thereof, and that on coming into effect of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Requisition Act), 1981 he became the direct tenant under the State. It appears that the suit was decreed and the present petitioner has filed an appeal being Title Appeal No. 102 of 1989 which is now pending in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah. Before the learned Assistant District Judge the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to lead additional evidence being a number of rent receipts allegedly granted to his father, Nader Box, by the erstwhile landlords. On a consideration of all the circumstances the learned Assistant District Judge rejected the petitioner's petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and hence this revisional application. ( 3 ) IT appears that in his deposition the petitioner stated that he himself had taken settlement of the land from the erstwhile landlords. The learned Judge felt that this evidence was contrary to the evidence sought to be adduced under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, for the receipts stood in the name of the father of the petitioner. The evidence is there nodoubt, but it appears that while coming to the conclusion in this regard the learned Judge did not take into consideration the fact that in his written statement the petitioner stated clearly that it was his father who had taken settlement of the disputed land. The evidence is there nodoubt, but it appears that while coming to the conclusion in this regard the learned Judge did not take into consideration the fact that in his written statement the petitioner stated clearly that it was his father who had taken settlement of the disputed land. In the circumstances stated citing Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Musammat Saran, AIR 1930 PC 57 it is urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the evidence contrary to the pleading need not be considered. Benefit of such evidence may not go to the party adducing it, but the other party cannot certainly be excluded from taking advantage of the contradiction between the pleading and the proof. Be that as it may, the learned Appellate Court below did not take into his consideration the fact that in his written statement the petitioner actually made out a case that his predecessor had taken settlement of the disputed property. This is a circumstance which goes against the order. ( 4 ) IT is pointed out from the side of the opposite party that the learned Appellate Court below actually considered the petition on merits and by finding the petitioner's plea under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) of the Code unacceptable rejected it, and it is urged in the circumstances stated that the impugned order should not be interfered with. The learned Assistant District Judge found the petitioner's story unacceptable as he held that on exercise of due diligence he ought to have found out the said receipts since they were lying within the heaps of old papers in his house. What the petitioner wanted to convey was that he discovered these rent receipts from the heaps of old papers only after the filing of the present appeal. It does not seem to be the case that during the pendency of the original suit he actually searched for these rent receipts in the said heap of old papers. What he wanted to mean is that he did not know that these rent receipts were lying with in that heap of old papers and he became aware of their existence in it only after the filing of the appeal. This is also a circumstance which escaped the attention of the learned court below. What he wanted to mean is that he did not know that these rent receipts were lying with in that heap of old papers and he became aware of their existence in it only after the filing of the appeal. This is also a circumstance which escaped the attention of the learned court below. If the rent receipts be really genuine as claimed from the side of the petitioner their exclusion would certainly cause a failure of justice and irreparable injury to the petitioner. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING all the circumstances I am of the view, therefore, that the impugned order cannot be supported. In the circumstances stated the impugned order is hereby set aside and the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is hereby allowed. The petitioner/appellant is hereby granted leave to lead into evidence the aforementioned rent receipts which must be lying in the records of the learned Appellate Court below and the learned Appellate Court below is hereby directed to allow the petitioner to prove the said receipts into evidence according to law. ( 6 ) LET it be clearly understood that this Court is not making any observation with regard to the genuineness of otherwise of the said rent receipts and the learned Appellate Court below will be at liberty to deal with the said rent receipts in any manner it considers fit and proper. The Revisional Application do stand allowed accordingly. Application allowed .