Judgement ORDER:-This revision is directed against the order dated 27-1-92 passed by the Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 60 of 1987. 2. The petitioners instituted a suit (TS No. 70/86) against the opposite party for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and also continuance of possession after expiry of the period of lease. The opposite party were defendants in the said suit. They filed written statement challenging the right of the plaintiff to get a decree as prayed for. According to the opposite party there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Both sides adduced evidence by examining their witnesses. The contention of the plaintiffs/petitioners is that they are landlords and defendants/opposite party are tenants and in spite of repeated demand they failed to pay rent. Besides, they are continuing to occupy the land even after expiry of the period. The Munsiff dismissed the suit. The petitioners preferred an appeal (TA 60/87) before the Assistant District Judge, Cachar, Silchar. During the pendency of the appeal a petition under O.41, R.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed stating, inter alia that in 1985 there was a devastating flood and as a result, vast area of Silchar town including the residential house of the petitioners submerged. As a result, the petitioners had to remove all movable properties belonging to them. The receipt book regarding collection of rent was not traceable in spite of their best efforts, therefore, the counterfoils of the receipt book could not be produced at the time of trial of the suit. However, during pendency of the appeal, while cleaning the first floor the receipt book was found and immediately thereafter the petitioners filed a petition. This petition was supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioners. In the said petition, the petitioners prayed for allowing them to adduce additional evidence and for accepting the counterfoils of receipt book, as the receipt book was very much material to prove the relationship of landlords and tenants. 3. The appellate court, however, dismissed the petition. The Court observed that the appeal was filed on 16-11-87 and the petition for additional evidence and its acceptance was presented on 6-5-91.,The Court further observed that the appellant was negligent in the appeal and only after long time filed the petition stating that on 1-5-91 while cleaning the first floor found the papers. The Court observed that the appeal was filed on 16-11-87 and the petition for additional evidence and its acceptance was presented on 6-5-91.,The Court further observed that the appellant was negligent in the appeal and only after long time filed the petition stating that on 1-5-91 while cleaning the first floor found the papers. According to the Asstt. District judge this petition was filed just to fill up lacunae in the suit and the Asstt. District Judge by his order dated 27-1-92 rejected the petition. Hence the present petition. 4. I have heard both sides, Mrs. S. Dutta Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the plaint it was specifically mentioned that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and opposite party and also it indicates that in spite of repeated demands the Respondents failed to pay rent. This itself is sufficient to indicate the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the other hand, in the written statement the opposite party has catigorically denied their obligation to pay rent in view of the fact that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and opposite party. This is the crux of the matter in the suit. If there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties the suit cannot proceed. In order to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant some important documents, like rent receipts are necessary. However, the rent receipts could not be produced as these were not traceable. Mrs. Purkayastha, further submits that there was no negligence, whatsoever, on the part of the petitioners; due to the natural calamity the important documents, like the counterfoils of rent receipt were misplaced and it was beyond the control of the petitioners to produce the rent receipts. She further submits that this is a fit case where this Court should invoke the power under O.41, R.27, because the ingredients referred to in the said order are present in the instant case The learned Asstt. District Judge, however, without considering those aspects of the matter rejected the prayer simply by saying that the petitioners were not diligent in proceeding with the case. According to her, the learned Asstt. District Judge failed to exercise the power vested on it by not allowing the petitioners to adduce evidence. 5. Mr. District Judge, however, without considering those aspects of the matter rejected the prayer simply by saying that the petitioners were not diligent in proceeding with the case. According to her, the learned Asstt. District Judge failed to exercise the power vested on it by not allowing the petitioners to adduce evidence. 5. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. He strenuously argues that there was sheer negligence on the part of the plaintiffs/petitiners. There was no pleading, whatsoever, in this respect and therefore, it will amount to allowing the petitioners to lead evidence contrary to the pleading. In the fitness of things, the Court should not interfere with the impugned order, more so, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Besides, the conduct of the petitioners itself was sufficient to indicate that there was negligence on their part. Because of the negligence, the petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of O. 41, R. 27 of C.P.C. 6. Mr. Choudhury draws my attention to a number of decision and tries to show that the Court should not give any opportunity to a person who failed to produce the documents and at a later stage makes attempt to fill up the lacunae. 7. It is a well settled law that additional evidence should not be allowed to be adduced at the appellate stage in order to allow one party to fill up certain lacunae in the suit. Of course, the position would have been different if the Court itself requires any document to enable it to pronounce judgment. Order 41, R. 27 of Code of Civil Procedure prescribes procedure for production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. Unless the conditions made therein are fulfilled, the Court shall not allow such evidence or documents to be produced. Of course, the position would have been different if the Court itself requires any document to enable it to pronounce judgment. Order 41, R. 27 of Code of Civil Procedure prescribes procedure for production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. Unless the conditions made therein are fulfilled, the Court shall not allow such evidence or documents to be produced. Under O. 41, R. 27, the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding 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, and/or 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. Therefore, from a bare reading of the O. 41, R. 27 it is abundantly clear that the Court has definitely power to allow production of such evidence or documents on certain grounds. 8. In order to further justice, if in the opinion of the Court a particular piece of document is necessary to come to a just finding, the Court has ample power to allow production of additional evidence or documemt. 9. In M. Mohammed v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Bom 443 , a Division Bench of Bombay High Court while dealing with a question whether lessees had complied with requirements of S. 175(3) of Government of India Act, 1935, the Court held that it was in the interest of justice that if documents existed, they should not be shut out. Similar is the case here. In order to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, certain documents may be necessary. However, such documents could not be produced in spite of best efforts of the petitioners. In my opinion, to prove the relationship of landlords and tenants, the counterfoils of rent receipts are necessary. 10. In view of the above, I find sufficient force in the submissions of Mrs. Dutta Purkayastha. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Asstt. District Judge, No. 1, Silchar and direct the Asstt. In my opinion, to prove the relationship of landlords and tenants, the counterfoils of rent receipts are necessary. 10. In view of the above, I find sufficient force in the submissions of Mrs. Dutta Purkayastha. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order passed by the Asstt. District Judge, No. 1, Silchar and direct the Asstt. District Judge to record evidence in respect of the documents, namely, counterfoils of the rent receipts, by himself and then proceed with the trial. However, the genuineness of the document will be determined on the basis of evidence led by the petitioners. The opposite party shall be at liberty to cross examine on this point. 11. The parties shall appear before the Court on March, 1994 to take a date for adducing evidence. In the result, the petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.