JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal was posted before me for admission on 23.7.1997. On that day, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tenant-defendant-appellant had moved an application u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC on 11.4.1997 accompanied with several rent receipts before the learned first appellate court but the learned first appellate court proceeded to decide the appeal without passing any order on the aforesaid application. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, the record of courts-below were summoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, examined the original record summoned from courts-below. 4. It reveals from perusal of record of learned first appellate court that an application u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC was moved by the appellant on 11.4.1997 and copy was also given to learned counsel for the plaintiff who also filed objection. It further reveals that instead of allowing or rejecting the aforesaid application, the learned first appellate Court has to decide the appeal itself by its impugned judgment dated 29.5.1997. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is on the same line that the first appellate Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment of learned trial Court without passing any judicial order on the application moved u/O. 41, R. 27 CPC. he placed reliance on a decision of mine in Smt. Jamna & Ors. v. Bhuwana, 1997(1) DNJ (Raj.) 271 . 6. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid argument with feeble voice. Mr. B.R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that although no specific order was passed on the application u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC moved by the appellant yet the learned first appellate court has taken into account the documentary evidence accompanying with the application. 7. I am of the view that there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. It is to be imbibed that u/O. 41, R. 27 CPC objective grounds are given and such application for adducing additional evidence before the appellate Court can be allowed only if any one of the objective grounds enumerated under the aforesaid order is satisfied.In view of what has been discussed above, the instant appeal is allowed. It is to be imbibed that u/O. 41, R. 27 CPC objective grounds are given and such application for adducing additional evidence before the appellate Court can be allowed only if any one of the objective grounds enumerated under the aforesaid order is satisfied.In view of what has been discussed above, the instant appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court dated 29.5.1997 is set aside and the case is remanded back to learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh with a direction to re-admit the appeal at its original number and decide the application moved by appellant on 11.4.1997 u/O. 41, R. 27 after giving opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the parties before deciding the appeal on merits afresh in accordance with law.Both the parties are directed to remain present before the first appellate Court on 11.12.1997 to avoid delay in disposal of the application u/O. 41 R. 27 and final hearing of the appeal on merit.It is made clear that execution of the decree under appeal shall remain stayed till pendency of the appeal before the learned first appellate Court.Before parting with the judgment I think it just and proper to direct the first appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously.The cost of the appeal is made easy. Office is directed to transmit the record of the case to learned first appellate Court forthwith.Appeal Allowed. *******