JUDGMENT : B.L. Yadav, J. This is Defendant's second appeal in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant appellant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land in dispute. Earlier two suits being suit No. 207 of 1968 and 362 of 1975 were also filed and they were decided in favour of plaintiff. Both the courts below have decreed present suit. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that some additional evidence was filed before the lower appellate court after exercising power under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC (for short the Code) but that additional evidence has not been mentioned in the judgment of the lower appellate court. Reliance was placed on the provision of Rule 29 of Order 41 of the Code, which is extracted below. 29. POINTS TO BE DEFINED AND RECORDED: Where additional evidence is allowed or directed to be taken, the Appellate Court shall specify the points to which the evidence is to be con-fined, and record on its proceedings the points so specified. 3. The aforesaid provisions may be read along with Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and also along with the amendments made by Allahabad High Court. The additional evidence can be taken by an appellate court only after complying with these provisions and after recording reasons. Not only the reasons have to be recorded for receiving additional evidence consistent with the provisions of Rule 27 of Order 41 read in the light of U.P. Amendment but the Appellate Court must also specify the points for which the additional evidence is to be confined. It is not open to the Appellate Court just to take additional evidence and rely upon the same without specifying as to for which points the evidence has been taken. This has to be recorded in the proceedings of the Court. In case it is not done the procedure adopted would be irregular. 4. It may be stated that the additional evidence itself can not be taken unless the appellate court has examined the entire evidence as it stands and when some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent but certainly not when a discovery is made out side the court of a fresh evidence and the application is made to import it. 4. It may be stated that the additional evidence itself can not be taken unless the appellate court has examined the entire evidence as it stands and when some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent but certainly not when a discovery is made out side the court of a fresh evidence and the application is made to import it. Before relying upon the additional evidence the procedure under Order 41 Rule 29 has to be followed i.e. the appellate court has to specify in the proceedings the points on which the additional evidence should be confined. But this was not done. The additional evidence so accepted can be relied upon only after following the procedure under Order 41 Rule 29. As this was not done the additional evidence was correctly not relied upon. See Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh, (1951) 2 SCR 258, Padmanabha Pillai Chellappan Pillai Vs. Ouseph Devassia, AIR 1967 Ker 83 . 5. In AIR 1931 175 (Privy Council), the question was about examination one Mr. Dubay in connection with the points as to whether a gift deed was fictitious. Their lordships of the Judicial Committee pointed out that the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Rule 29 have to be carefully followed and unless it was done the additional evidence without specifying the points to which additional evidence was confined and further this must be recorded in the proceedings and order sheet of the Court only thereafter additional evidence can be considered. 6. In my opinion, therefore, apart from conditions to be fulfilled by the appellate court as provided under Order 41 Rule 27 the procedure under Rule 29 of Order 41 was an additional condition to be fulfilled i.e. by recording in the proceedings of the Court specifying the points to which the additional evidence was to be confined. The legislature has carefully framed the exceptional procedure under Order 41 Rule 27 and Rule 29 of the Code to be followed by the appellate Court. Special precaution has been taken to ensure justice. This is with a view so that the acceptance of additional evidence and placing reliance upon the same may not become a general rule. The lower appellate court was justified in not relying upon additional evidence in the absence of compliance of procedure under Order 41 Rule 29 of the Code. 7. Special precaution has been taken to ensure justice. This is with a view so that the acceptance of additional evidence and placing reliance upon the same may not become a general rule. The lower appellate court was justified in not relying upon additional evidence in the absence of compliance of procedure under Order 41 Rule 29 of the Code. 7. Apart from it earlier two suits, in respect of the land in suit, between the parties was decided on merits in favour of the plaintiff Respondents. Those decisions would operate as resjudicata against the interest of the appellants. 8. In view of the discussions made herein before the appeal is without any substance and is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code.