Judgment :- The deponent of the affidavit contends as follows: The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 30,790/-- from the respondent herein on the file of Sub Court and obtained a decree on 29-2-1984. The respondent has filed an appeal and it was ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/-- in Court in CMP No. 6291 / 1984. The respondent deposited the amount. He has been directed to give an undertaking not to alienate the bus. The appellant herein filed an application before the lower Court to send the thumb impression in Ex. A.1 and the thumb impression of the appellant taken in Court to the Forensic Science Department. The Experts have given their opinion that the impressions are identical and the same. This finding is against the appellant. The appellant failed to mark the document. As the expert opinion was against him, the applicant's father filed an application to examine the Expert. The lower Court after perusal of the opinion of the Expert. had drawn an adverse inference against the appellant and gave a finding that Ex. A.1 is not a forged document. The expert opinion was not marked in the trial Court. Marking of the same is not going to alter the plaintiff's case. It will held the Court to come to a conclusion regarding the finding of the lower Court. Hence the application to receive the certified copy of the documents, filed as additional evidence. 2. C. M. P. No. 16486/ 1995 :-- The deponent of the affidavit contends as follows: The Petitioner has filed a suit and obtained a decree against the respondent-appellant for Rs. 30,790/- Against the same, the respondent has preferred an appeal. A sum of Rs. 5,000/--was ordered to be deposited in the trial Court and the respondent has deposited the same. The appellant filed an application to send Ex.A.1 thumb impression and thumb impression of the appellant taken in open Court to Forensic Science Department. As Experts have given an opinion that they are the same, the document therefore was not marked by the appellant. But the lower Court went through the Experts opinion and gave its finding. The applicant has filed an application to receive the Expert opinion as additional evidence. The present application is to call for the report of the Expert's opinion and mark the same as Court Exhibits. Hence the petition. 3. But the lower Court went through the Experts opinion and gave its finding. The applicant has filed an application to receive the Expert opinion as additional evidence. The present application is to call for the report of the Expert's opinion and mark the same as Court Exhibits. Hence the petition. 3. In common counter, the respondent contends as follows. It is not correct to say that the respondent has deposited only Rs. 5,000/-. He had actually paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-- by draft. The petitioner has suppressed the same. When the appeal is in a part-heard stage, the present petitions have been filed. There is no reason as to why the Expert opinion has not been marked in the trial Court. There is no reason as to why the Expert has not been examined in the trial Court. As per Order 41, Rule 27(1) of the Civil P.C. it must be satisfied that notwithstanding the exercise of the deligence, the evidence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him in time. The plaintiff has not given any such reason. The petitioner cannot now seek to examine the Expert and mark the opinion as additional evidence. The petitioner was contented with the evidence of P.W. 1. He cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna 12 years after the judgment. The Expert opinion cannot be marked in evidence. The opinion itself has been given at the instigation of the Sambandhi of the plaintiff who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police Department. The petitioners themselves have stated that the marking of the Expert's opinion is not going to imporve the plaintiff's case. No prejudice will therefore, be caused if the petitions are dismissed. The petitioner cannot practically reopen the trial under the pretext of marking the Expert's opinion. The petitions are therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. These two petitions have been filed by the respondent in the appeal, who is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is on a promissory note said to have been executed by the appellant defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Among other grounds, the defendant resisted the suit by contending that the thumb impression in the suit promissory note is not his thumb impression and it has been fabricated by the plaintiff. On the application of the appellant-defendant, the disputed document viz. Among other grounds, the defendant resisted the suit by contending that the thumb impression in the suit promissory note is not his thumb impression and it has been fabricated by the plaintiff. On the application of the appellant-defendant, the disputed document viz. the promissory note under Ex.A.1 and some of the thumb impression of the defendant taken in Court appears to have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for being compared and the Finger Print Expert also is said to have given an opinion that the thumb impression have been sent for his perusal. This report of the Finger Print Expert has not been exhibited during trial. But, the trial Court has considered the opinion of the Expert and has come to the conclusion that the suit promissory note has been executed by the defendant. It is one of the grounds on which, the trial Court has come to this conclusion. The suit ultimately ended in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant has preferred the appeal. 5. In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that unless the documents filed in the case are proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, the contents of the same should not be used as evidence and relies upon the decision reported in P. Dhanaraj v. N. Chellah Nadar, (1986)1 Mad LJ 207 for the above proposition. According to the learned counsel, the trial court has committed an error in relying upon the opinion of the Expert, when it has not been marked as an exhibit in the trial Court and therefore the Judgment should be set aside on that ground. It is at this stage, the respondent has come forward with these two petitions, one for marking the certified copy of the report of the experts additional evidence and another for sending for the original report of the Expert from the trial Court. The petitioner in these two petitions prays that the Expert's opinion should be marked as additional evidence. 6. The petitioner in these two petitions prays that the Expert's opinion should be marked as additional evidence. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue that signs of identifying thumb impression is an exact sign and does not admit of any mistake or doubt and it is by mistake, the Expert opinion has not been marked and therefore, an opportunity must be given to the petitioner herein to exhibit the Finger Print Expert's opinion as an additional document. In Support of his above contention, the learned counsel also has relied upon the decision reported in Kuppurathinam v. Munirathinam, (1993) 1 Mad LJ 607 wherein it has been held that in cases where the document available in Court are omitted to be marked due to inadvertence, the party should not be penalised for the mistake of the Counsel and under Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C., additional evidence could be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further argue that under Order 41, Rule 27(1) of the Civil P.C. the appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence to enable the Court to pronounce Judgment, but also for "any other substantial cause" and that there may be cases where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce Judgment on the state of records as it is and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce Judgment, it still considers that in the interests of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce Judgment in a more satisfactory manner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the decision reported in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy, 1963 AIR(SC) 1526, 1964 (2) SCR 35 , 1963 ALJ 903, 1964 (1) MLJ(SC) 13, 24 ELR 42, 1963 All(LJ) 903, 1986 AIR(Cal) 403, 1964 (1) MLJ 13 for the above proposition has argued that the present case is one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(a) of the Code of Civil P.C. and it is necessary that the document is sent for and marked as additional evidence or the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that it is a well settled principle of law that the documents upon which reliance is sought to be placed must be brought on records of the case legally and it is also well settled that documents do not prove themselves and where no witness was examined for proving the document, there is absolutely no doubt that there has been procedural infirmity committed by authority in passing impugned order on the basis of documents and therefore, even if the report of the Finger Print Expert is set for, it cannot be marked without examining the Expert since approving the document which was examined by the witness concerned would be a procedural infirmity and this Court cannot given room for such procedural infirmity. The learned counsel relies upon the 'decision reported in Rajwai Devi v. Joint Director; Consolidation, Government of Bihar, 1989 AIR(Pat) 66 for the above proposition. In addition to the above ruling of the Patna High Court, I wish to refer to the decision reported in Balkrishna Das v. Radha Devi, 1989 AIR(All) 133 wherein a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the Expert's report is not straightway admissible without examining him and before admitting the expert evidence, his competency as Expert must be established and he should be subjected to cross examination. In the above decision it has been held that the report of the hand-writing expert would not be admissible in evidence in the absence of formal proof and examining the experts. The same principle applies to the case of marking the report of the Finger Print Expert also. In the above decision it has been held that the report of the hand-writing expert would not be admissible in evidence in the absence of formal proof and examining the experts. The same principle applies to the case of marking the report of the Finger Print Expert also. There cannot be any two opinion that the witness has to be examined even if the document is sent for. We have to see whether there is any justification for sending for the document and examine the witness either in this Court or remand the matter to the trial Court for examining the expert and mark the report as additional evidence. 8. The fact that the defendant has filed an application for sending the document to the expert for his opinion and expert has also given opinion are not in dispute. It is not as if the document was not within the reach of the defendant or the plaintiff since it is available in Court. But the document has not been marked. It has been held in the decision reported in N.N. Raranatha Iyer v. Sannasi Kandan, (1969) 1 SCWR 1243 as follows:-- "Jurisdiction of the Court to admit additional evidence cannot be exercised in favour of a party who has deliberately withheld evidence from the Courts below, and after a decision is recorded against him to enable him to fill up the lacuna in his evidence." In the present case, the defendant has deliberately withheld the opinion of the expert which is said to be against him, from the trial Court and the suit also went against him in the trial Court. Therefore, when we consider the application in the light of the decision reported in N.N. Ramanatha Iyer v. Sannasi Kandan, (1969) 1 SCWR 1243 we have to come to the conclusion that we cannot exercise any jurisdiction to admit the additional evidence which has been withheld by the defendant intentionally. In the present case, the admissibility of the additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(1) of the Civil P.C. cannot be said to depend upon whether or not this Court required it to enable it pronounce Judgment, the evidence could have been tendered in the trial Court and the petitioner herein having not been vigilant in producing it then. In the present case, the admissibility of the additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(1) of the Civil P.C. cannot be said to depend upon whether or not this Court required it to enable it pronounce Judgment, the evidence could have been tendered in the trial Court and the petitioner herein having not been vigilant in producing it then. The report of the Finger Print Expert cannot be allowed to be let in at the appellate state on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Clause (aa) of Order 41, Rule 27(1), C.P.C. could not be attracted in this case, in asmuchas the petitioner herein had sufficient opportunity to exhibit the report of the Finger Print Expert in the trial Court and it is not as if the trial Court has prevented him from exhibiting it and did not give him an opportunity to admit this document as an exhibit. Therefore, this document cannot be either marked in this Court or sent for from the trial Court. 9. Coming to the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the appeal viz., the petitioner herein that the matter may be remitted to the trial Court concerned, I only wish to state that the said request cannot be complied with, since the expression "interests of justice" occurring in Order 41, Rule 23 of the Civi1 P.C. does not widen the powers of this Court to remand the suit in the sense that irrespective of the fact whether it comes to the conclusion that the Judgment and decree of the trial Court are liable to be reversed or set aside or not, this Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require that there should be a fresh trial. It is only in cases where irrespective of the fact whether it comes to the conclusion that the Judgment and decree of the trial Court are liable to be reversed or set aside, if the appellate Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice require that there should be a fresh trial, it can remand the suit for fresh disposal. Even without the expert opinion, the suit as well as the appeal can be disposed of and there cannot be any justification for a remand. In that view, I am of opinion that the request for remand also cannot be complied with. Even without the expert opinion, the suit as well as the appeal can be disposed of and there cannot be any justification for a remand. In that view, I am of opinion that the request for remand also cannot be complied with. Consideration all these aspects, I am of opinion that both the petitions are without merits and are liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, OMP Nos. 15945 and 16486/ 1995 are dismissed. Post the appeal for further hearing in the first week of March, 1996. Petition dismissed.