VK Khanna, CJ- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3559 of 1993 dated 30.5.94. 2. At the admission stage we have heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. KC Das learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The relevant facts for the purposes of- adjudication of the appeal are that an appeal has been filed by the petitioner-appellant before the Assam Board of Revenue against the order of settlement dated 20.2.93 of Rangchali CS Shop in favour of the contesting private respondent. The appeal was heard on 17.1.93 and the judgment was reserved. However, before the judgment could be pronounced, on 16.11.93 an affidavit dated 10.11.93 was filed on behalf of the contesting private respondent and the Board of Revenue fixed 3rd December, 1993 for hearing for deciding as to whether the additional evidence submitted by the private contesting respondent should be admitted or not. On 3.12.93 the counsel for both the parties in the appeal were heard and the Advocate for the contesting private respondent was asked to file an Affidavit of Shri Ajit Kakati, purchaser of the vehicle and explain the excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- incurred in purchasing liquor. The appeal was fixed for hearing again on 23.12.93. It is at this stage that the petitioner appellant came to this Court and challenged the order dated 3.12.93 by filing Civil Rule No.3559 of 1993. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on 30th May, 1994. It is this order which is under challenge before us. 4. Mr.C.Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged before us that under Regulation 17 of the Assam Board of Regulation 1 of 1963, the Assam Board of Revenue had no power to call for an additional affidavit at the stage of hearing of the appeal. 5. After considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel appea­ring for the appellant and also after hearing Mr. KG Das, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct. Regulation 17 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations runs as follows : "17. Fresh evidence. 5. After considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel appea­ring for the appellant and also after hearing Mr. KG Das, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct. Regulation 17 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations runs as follows : "17. Fresh evidence. (1) No party to an appeal or an application shall be entitled to adduce fresh evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the Board. The Board may, however, at any stage accept docu­ments tendered by a party or call for any documents, if it is of opinion that they are necessary for deciding the application : Provided that the other party shall in that case be entitled to produce rebutting evidence. (2) A party desiring to produce such documents or affidavit shall file three copies of the same on a date at least seven days ahead of the date of hearing and shall at the same time serve an additional copy thereof on each of the respondents or opposite parties. (3) The Board may direct any authority against whose order an appeal or application is made to make such further investigation or to take additional evidence directly or through any subordinate authority as it may think necessary. (4) Where fresh evidence has been adduced under sub-regulation (1) or a further investigation is made or additional evidence is taken under sub-regulation (3), the parties shall be entitled to address the Board on points arising out of the fresh or additional evidence or further investigation." A bare perusal of the aforesaid Regulation would show that under Regu­lation 17(1) a power has been given to the Board to accept documents tendered by a party or call for any documents, if it is of opinion that they are necessary for deciding the appeal. The proviso gives a right to the other party to produce evidence in rebuttal. There is yet another power given to the Board under Regulation 17 (3) to either make further investigation or to take additional evidence directly or through any subordinate authority as may think necessary (emphasis provided). 6. The proviso gives a right to the other party to produce evidence in rebuttal. There is yet another power given to the Board under Regulation 17 (3) to either make further investigation or to take additional evidence directly or through any subordinate authority as may think necessary (emphasis provided). 6. From the reading of Regulation 17, therefore it is clear that at the time of hearing of the appeal, if the Board of Revenue has come to the conclusion that it becomes necessary for proper adjudication of the appeal that some additional evidence should also come before it, the same may be sought from the concerned party either directly or through any subordinate authority. The Board therefore, in our opinion, has power to call for additi­onal evidence directly from the party concerned. In this connection it may also be stated that the learned counsel has also urged before us that the additional evidence cannot be taken after the hearing has been concluded and the judgment has been reserved. In our opinion, before pronouncement of the judgment the Board is entitled to exercise power given under Regulation 17 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulation I, 1963. We find support of the views we have expressed above from the Division Bench decision in the case of Shri Tankeswar Duara vs. The Assam Board of Revenue & others reported in (1981) I GLR 27. 7. Before parting we make it clear that the Board before proceeding to finally adjudicate the appeal will allow the petitioner-appellant to produce any evidence in rebuttal if he so desires. 8. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the present appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Board of Revenue will bow conclude the hearing of the appeal in the light of observa­tions made above. The stay order granted by this Court stands discharged. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs.