JUDGMENT R.K. Dhusiya, Member - This revision has been filed against the order dated 29.12.83 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur by which he has allowed to file the documents attached with the application. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Pheku and others filed a suit u/Sec. 198 (4) of Z.A. and L.R. Act before the trial court, on 26.6.1980 with the prayer to cancel the leases granted to the opposite party as it was granted without following the procedure prescribed under the law. The case was contested by the opposite party. The trial court after hearing the parties and going through the evidence cancelled the lease on 3.4.82. Aggrieved by that order a revision was filed before the learned Addl. Commissioner. 3. On 1.9.1983 the Opp. Party, Smt. Kalamadani, moved an application for filing some additional evidence. The learned Addl. Commissioner by his order dated 29.12.1983 allowed her application on payment of Rs. 20/- as cost. Aggrieved by that order of the learned Addl. Commissioner, the present revision has been filed before this court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also been the relevant papers on the file. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has mainly argued that the learned Addl. Commissioner's order is without jurisdiction. It if rather contended that the additional evidence can be allowed if it satisfies the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. In support of his contention he cited the ruling reported in 1983 AWC P. 91 (Rev.). In reply it has been argued that the learned Addl. Commissioner has passed the impugned order after hearing both the parties. It is further submitted that opportunity was given to the opposite party i.e., the revisionist who filed objection against it on 12.10.1983 as such, the learned Addl. Commissioner has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. It is also submitted that it is an interlocutory order as such, the revision filed against it, is not maintainable. He, therefore, prayed that the revision be dismissed. 6. I find that the application for additional evidence was filed on 1.9.1983 and its objection was filed on 12.10.1983. The learned Addl. Commissioner allowed the application on 29.12.1983 holding that the applicant is allowed to file the documents attached with the application. She shall, however, pay Rs. 20 as cost to the Opp. 6. I find that the application for additional evidence was filed on 1.9.1983 and its objection was filed on 12.10.1983. The learned Addl. Commissioner allowed the application on 29.12.1983 holding that the applicant is allowed to file the documents attached with the application. She shall, however, pay Rs. 20 as cost to the Opp. Party who shall have also right to file documentary evidence in rebuttal. 7. From the perusal of the application dated 1.9.1983 it is evident that the Opp. Party, Smt. Kalamadani, was not impleaded as party before the trial court as such, she could not file the evidence and hence, she prayed for admitting the same for just decision of the case. But the learned Addl. Commissioner in his order dated 29.12.83 did not record the reason for its admission, as required under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. 8. I find force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the revisionist because under Order 41, Rule 27 (2) it is provided that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate court, the court, shall record the reason for its admission. Thus, the learned Addl. Commissioner has committed apparent error in not following the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. The ruling cited before me reported in 1983 AWC Page 91 (Rev.) is also applicable in the instant case because in that case also the learned Addl. Commissioner did not record any reason for allowing toe application of additional evidence. 9. In view of the above, I allow the revision, set aside the order dated 29.12.83 and direct the lower revisional court to pass a fresh order as required by under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C.