Judgment : R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. Instant petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for short 'the Act'. 2. PETITIONERS pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-8-1996 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for permission to file additional evidence in the appeal arising out of the said proceedings. Notices on behalf of respondent No. 1 have been accepted by Learned Standing Counsel and Mr. V K. Goel, Advocate, has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 2, the contesting respondent. A counter- affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the said respondent. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that respondents No. 3 to 11 are pro forma respondents and it is not necessary to serve the notices of this petitioner upon them. Therefore, notices are not being issued to the said respondents. 3. AS prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard this petition finally at this stage. 4. THE relevant facts of the case given rise to the present petition are that the release application filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 7th October, 1995. THE petitioners feeling ag grieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. During the pendency of the said appeal they made an application for permission to file additional documentary evidence before the Appellate Authority. THE application filed by the petitioners was opposed by the landlord, the respondent No. 3. THE Appellate Authority by means of the impugned order dated 13-8-96 dismissed the said application. As stated above, the present petition has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 13-8-1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the appellate authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. It has been urged that Appellate Authority has ample power to admit additional evidence documentary or oral. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the appellate authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. It has been urged that Appellate Authority has ample power to admit additional evidence documentary or oral. The Appellate Authority erred in law in dismissing the said application strictly construing the provisions of the Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. He submits that the power conferred upon the Appellate Authority under Section 22 read with Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is much wider than power of appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. In support of his sub mission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision in Bhola Nath v. Additional District Judge, Gonda and others, 1985 (1) ARC 445. 5. ON the other hand Mr. V. K. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is quite legal and does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record. He submitted that the documents in question which were sought to be filed at appellate stage were within the knowledge of the petitioners since from beginning but they were not filed by them before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, they could not be filed at the appellate stage in view of provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. which were applicable in the present case. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the. parties and perused the record. Sections 22 and 10 (2) of the Act are relevant for the purposes of the present case, which are reproduced below: "22. Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of (Section 10) shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal. 7. APPEAL against Order under Sections 8, 9 and 9-A.- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . 7. APPEAL against Order under Sections 8, 9 and 9-A.- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . (2) The appellate authority may confirm, vary or rescind the order, or remand the case to the District Magistrate for rehearing, and may also take any additional evidence, and pending its decision, stay the operation of the order under appeal on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit. "10. The combined reading of the aforesaid Sections fully establishes that the appellate authority while dealing with an appeal under Section 22 has got the jurisdiction to admit additional evidence. In the aforesaid sections, however, no guideline for exercise of the said power has been given. This Court while interpreting the aforesaid provisions in several cases ruled that the power to admit additional evidence given to the appellate authority under Section 10 (2) is not unhedged. The Appellate Authority exercises the same powers as are vested in the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure and are deemed to be a civil court and the proceedings are judicial proceedings. It has been ruled that although the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. in terms do not apply to the appeals filed under Section 22 of the Act, but the principles of the said rule certainly apply to the same reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: (1) Bhola Nath v. Addl. District Judge, Gonda and others, 1985 (1) ARC 445. (2) Mr. Ruwaiya Khatun and others v. Mt. Maqbul Fatma and others, 1977 UPRCC 58. 8. THE Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. reads as under: "27. Production of additional evidence in appellate Court.- (I) THE parties to an appeal Shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. (2) Mr. Ruwaiya Khatun and others v. Mt. Maqbul Fatma and others, 1977 UPRCC 58. 8. THE Order XLI, Rule 27 C. P. C. reads as under: "27. Production of additional evidence in appellate Court.- (I) THE parties to an appeal Shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the ex ercise 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 (b) 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. (2) Where additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. Aforesaid rule has been amended by High Court and in the said rule clause (b) has been inserted. The said amendment is reproduced below: "high Court Amendment ALLAHABAD - Insert the following as clause (b) and correct clause (b) with clause (c): (b) The evidence sought to be adduced by a party to the appeal is evidence, which after exercise of the diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when decree or order under appeal was passed or made, or. (9-6-1943 and 31-7-1943)" 9. IN the present case the petitioners have filed the application for permission to produce additional evidence. IN paragraph No. 5 of the said application it was stated as under : 10. IN brief it was pleaded that the additional evidence which was sought to be filed by the petitioners at the appellate stage was necessary to enable the Court to pronounce judgment and that even after exercise of the diligence the same could not be produced by them before the Prescribed Authority when order was passed by it against them. IN brief it was pleaded that the additional evidence which was sought to be filed by the petitioners at the appellate stage was necessary to enable the Court to pronounce judgment and that even after exercise of the diligence the same could not be produced by them before the Prescribed Authority when order was passed by it against them. It was not pleaded that the said evidence was not within their knowledge when the matter was pending before the Prescribed Authority. The appellate authority has erroneously proceeded to decide the application for permission to file additional evidence on the assumption that the additional evidence was sought to be filed on the ground that the same was not in possession and custody of the petitioners as would appear from the following observations: "hence it is clear that the documents/papers said to be filed as Annexure with the affidavit 130 were in possession and custody of the appellants even during the pendency of the application before the Prescribed Authority. " 11. THE appellate authority rejected the application filed by the petitioners holding that: "it is also settled law that appellate court while deciding an appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 may admit the additional evidence in view of the provisions as contained under Section 12 (2) of the Act. However, the same can be admitted only on the ground that document was not within the knowledge and custody of the party during the pendency of the case in the lower court and the same is necessary for justice between the parties. " 12. THE appellate authority apparently did not take into consideration the provisions of Rule 27 as amended by our High Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Mi. Ruwaia Khanm and others v. Mt. Maqbool Fatma and others, AIR 1936 All. " 12. THE appellate authority apparently did not take into consideration the provisions of Rule 27 as amended by our High Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Mi. Ruwaia Khanm and others v. Mt. Maqbool Fatma and others, AIR 1936 All. 217, was pleased to hold as under after noticing the aforesaid amendment in the Rule 27 of Order XLI C. P. C. : "this sub rule now lays down that the question of admission of new evidence does not depend on the requirements of the appellate court and that a party has a right if he satisfies the court that he exercised due diligence and the new evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree or order under appeal was passed or made. We, therefore, direct the attention of the learned District Judge to change in the law which has been made by this rule. . . . . . . . . . " In view of the amendment made by our High Court in Rule 27 of Order XLI, even if, construing strictly although for the purposes of Sections 22 read with Section 10 of the Act, the case set up by the petitioners is fully covered by the amended provisions of the Rule. The appellate court, therefore, ought to have taken into consideration the amended rule while dealing and deciding the application for permission to file additional evidence. 13. THE Appellate Authority holding that since the evidence sought to be filed by the petitioners at appellate stage was within their knowledge at the time when the case was pending before the Prescribed Authority and filed at the appellate stage, could not and did not apply its mind to the contents of the said document and to the question as to whether the same was decisive and conclusive character on the vital issue involved in the case and was necessary for enabling the court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cost. It may be noted that Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 are independent, therefore, even if, the said evidence could not be permitted to be produced under clause (a) or (aa) or (b) it was obligatory upon the court to see as to whether the said documents were necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause as the purpose of procedural law is too advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. 14. IN view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13-8-96 is quashed. The case remanded to the respondent No. 1 to decide the same in the light of observations made above. It is further observed that in the event the aforesaid documents or any one of them is permitted to be filed as additional evidence, the respondent No. 2 shall be given an opportunity to file his evidence in rebuttal and shall be awarded reasonable costs. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.