Honble SHARMA, J. – Rejection of an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the appellate court is grievance of the tenant petitioner in this revision. (2) For the purpose of considering whether additional evidence is to be entertained by the appellate court, it is always desirable to consider the application for additional evidence along with the merits of the appeal. (3). The tenant petitioner sought to place certified copy of the receipt issued by the Income Tax Department, Income Tax Assessment Order. Cement purchase bill and Bill Book from 25.1.1980 to 20.6.80. It was stated in the application that the said documents were not found and could not be produced before the trial court. Documents were relevant to decide issue No.3. Application was supported by affidavit. (4). In the suit, the land lord non-petitioner pleaded that the tenant petitioner was not using the shop in dispute and had been doing cloth business in another shop where the case of the defendant was that he was doing business in the shop in dispute. (5). The tenant petitioner on March 1, 1989 filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the appellate court stating therein that formerly he used to carry on grain business but since, Jan. 22, 1980 he started cement business and was maintaining cash book and used to pay income tax. The appellate court dismissed the application holding that since the tenant did not file the carbon copy of the sales bills reliance on cash book was doubtful. So also in income tax return the date of assessment was not mentioned. As such the assessment order was not relevant. Again an application dated October 12, 1989 was filed by the tenant petitioner along with certified copy of the documents as mentioned herein above and it was rejected on the ground that as earlier application was dismissed second application could not have been accepted. The appellate court also observed that the documents produced by the tenant petitioner were doubtful in nature. (6). Reliance has been placed on Smt. Sarada and Ors. vs. Maikkoth Kombra Rajendran,(1) in which the Honble Apex Court observed that in order to advance fair justice to the parties, the appellate court ought to have received the additional evidence and consider the fact thereof. (7). (6). Reliance has been placed on Smt. Sarada and Ors. vs. Maikkoth Kombra Rajendran,(1) in which the Honble Apex Court observed that in order to advance fair justice to the parties, the appellate court ought to have received the additional evidence and consider the fact thereof. (7). Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC the appellate court may allow additional evi- dence which is necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. (8). In the instant case, the principles of constructive resjudicata are not applicable as with the second application the tenant petitioner had filed certified copy of the assessment order with dates as well as copy of the bill book which he could not file with the earlier application and the appellate court ought to have allowed the application, as the additional evidence relates to just decision of the issue No. 3 . In not allowing the application, the court below has committed jurisdictional error and if the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice. (9). Consequently, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. While accepting the application filed under Order 41 and 27 CPC I direct the appellate court to decide the appeal within four months of the receipt of this order. Costs easy.