JUDGMENT 1. 1. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal but Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code enacts exception to the general rule. If the court form 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, 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. The appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined, but the court shall have to record the reasons for its admission. 2. Short question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the appellate court can remand the case to the trial court with a direction to decide a particular issue afresh after-accepting the application submitted under order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code ? 3. This question has emerged from the following facts : (i) The plaintiff petitioner instituted a suit for eviction relating to the property in question on the grounds of default in making payment of rent, material alteration and reasonable and bona fide necessity. (ii) The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1990. The defendant non petitioner preferred appeal against the said decree and judgment. (iii) In the appellate court the defendant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, stating therein that the plaintiff had started sweet business in the name and style of BADSHAH SWEETS at 267, M.G. Road Poona. It was further alleged that this fact came to his notice on 1.8.1995. It was proved that additional evidence may be ordered to be taken regarding this subsequent event. (iv) Reply of this application was filed by the plaintiff petitioner duly supported by an affidavit. It was stated in the reply that business of Badshah Sweets belongs to Asgar Ali and the plaintiff was not at all related with the said business. It was proved that additional evidence may be ordered to be taken regarding this subsequent event. (iv) Reply of this application was filed by the plaintiff petitioner duly supported by an affidavit. It was stated in the reply that business of Badshah Sweets belongs to Asgar Ali and the plaintiff was not at all related with the said business. Trade Licence under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 was issued on 27.12.1990 in the name of said Asgar Ali. Police Licence was also in his name. Both these documents were produced by the plaintiff in the lower appellate court. (v) The lower appellate court accepted the application of the defendant non-petitioner vide impugned order dated 16.10.95 and issue No. 2 relating to reasonable and bona fide necessity was remitted to the trial court for fresh decision. (vi) This order has been assailed in this revision by the plaintiff petitioner. 4. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed before me and carefully perused the impugned order. I have been taken through the copies of the statements as well as the documents. 5. Mr. B.L. Agrawal the learned counsel submitted that the application moved by the defendant non-petitioner does not fall in any of the three clauses of order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The defendant was within the knowledge of the alleged fact as per ground No. 8 of Memo of appeal preferred by him before the lower appellate court. That apart he stated in his statement given in the trial court that he had heard that the plaintiff has been doing the business in Poona. Thus the alleged fact in the application that he came to know of this fact on 1st August, 1995 was totally false, concocted as well as fabricated. The application of the defendant was not supported with documentary evidence. The additional evidence cannot be produced to fill up gaps and lacunas. 6. Mr. B.L. Agrawal, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Madan Lal vs. Mala Ram, RLW 1992(2) page 389 in which it has been held by this court that if the plaintiff did not take care to produce the document on which he wants to place reliance then he cannot be permitted to do so, so as to fill up the lacuna or gap left out by him during the trial. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. J.S. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that subsequent events which go to show the increasing necessity of the landlord can also be looked into and the court is bound to consider any change either in fact or in law which has super viewed since the judgment was entered. In Basti Chand Bhansali Vs. Dharam Veer Kalia, 1989 (2) WLN 478 = 1989(1) RLR 167 it has been held as under : "The important subsequent events are that while the family of the plaintiff is a growing family in the sense that his daughter and three sons who were studying in IX, VI, V and IIIrd classes in the year 1977 when the suit was filed, have by now grown up and thus his family has increased. As against this the defendant had discharged all his responsibilities. His youngest son Madhusudan has gone to a foreign country. His other sons G.N. Kalia and K.N. Kalia have admittedly shifted to other houses. The defendant in his reply has said that they have shifted temporarily. No reason has been assigned as to why they have .... daughters of the defendant 1 have been married. His wife has expired. Thus the number of his dependent family members have considerably reduced and his need for the accommodation is not that much which it was before. It is true that the number of family members of the plaintiff have grown up but how can we ignore that the plaintiff can only make additions in his own house after he gets his possession and not before it. Comparative hardship in the facts and circumstances of this case is dearly greater to the plaintiff than to the defendant." 8. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Rama, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 700 , the Apex Court has observed as under : "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur. The court is not precluded from taking a cutious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief." 9. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur. The court is not precluded from taking a cutious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief." 9. In the statement recorded by the trial court Nemichand defendant has stated as under: HINDI MATTER 363329 The lower appellate court did not consider this statement of the defendant at the time of adjudication of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The impugned order of the court below runs into nine pages. Seven pages of the order contained only facts and verbatim reproduction of the contents of the application, replies and affidavits. Paras 1 to 18 have consumed the factual position of the case. In para No. 19 the rulings cited by the learned counsel have been referred. In para 20 the learned Additional District Judge has appreciated as many as 13 rulings of the various High Courts only in 5 lines. The Additional District Judge was agreed with the principles laid down in the rulings, so he did not 'waste' his time in discussing the said rulings in details. Only in one para i.e. in para 21 the findings were arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge and application under section 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code was ordered to be allowed and issue No. 2 was remanded for the fresh decision. 10. As the defendant had knowledge of the 'fact' even before the decision of the trial court, about which he wanted to produce additional evidence in the lower-appellate court, it was incumbent upon him to show that after the exercise of due diligence, he could not produce the said evidence. The fact of doing business in Poona by the plaintiff does not relate to subsequent events and the same in not covered by the ratio laid down in Basti Chand Bhansali's case (supra) and Ramesh Kumar case (supra). The court below has committed illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it in accepting the application submitted by the defendant non-petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The intention of the defendant non-petitioner was to fill up the lacunas left by him during the trial and he cannot be permitted to do so. 11. The court below has committed illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it in accepting the application submitted by the defendant non-petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The intention of the defendant non-petitioner was to fill up the lacunas left by him during the trial and he cannot be permitted to do so. 11. In the result, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order. I direct the parties to appear before the lower appellate court on 9.12.1996 and thereafter within one month the learned appellate court is directed to decide the appeal pending before it. 12. Before parting with, I intend to observe that the judicial Officers of the subordinate courts should appreciate the case laws cited before them properly and not in the manner in which the learned lower appellate court has done in this case. Simply by referring the case laws and by saying that they agree with the principles laid down in the said rulings cannot be said to be the "proper appreciation" of the judicial pronouncements. Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Courts should not waste the stationary in verbatim incorporating pleadings of the parties, contents of the applications, replies and affidavits and the statements of the witnesses. Incorporation of concise facts, proper discussion and appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and case law is necessary for a 'standard judgment'. Let copies of this order be circulated amongst District Judges, who will further communicate it to their subordinate judicial officers.Petition allowed. *******