JUDGMENT BHASKAR BHATTACHARJEE, J. 1. This revisional application under section 115 of CPC is at the instance of defendant respondent and is directed against order no.21 dated December 1, 1992 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 199 of 1990. 2. The opposite party plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement. The said suit having been dismissed the opposite party preferred the aforesaid first appeal before the learned District Judge which ultimately came up for hearing before the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah. In the said appeal the opposite party filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC thereby praying for accepting as additional evidence a dead of declaration dated January 6, 1986 for the purpose of proving her ownership in the suit property. The learned 1st Appellate Court by the order impugned allowed such application. Being aggrieved the defendant respondent has preferred the instant revisional application. 3. Mr. Banerjee, appearing in support of the instant revisional application has contended that the learned First Appellate Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC in as much as the opposite party herein did not give any reason why she could not produce the said document at the time of hearing of the suit. Mr. Banerjee further contends that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Bangshidhar Pal vs. Anil Kumar Pal, 1994 (2) CLJ 114, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC can be disposed of only at the time of disposal of the appeal itself and not separately. Mr. Banerjee further contends that in view of the Supreme Court decision in Rupchand vs. Gopichand Tohenlia, AIR 1989 SC 1416 , the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court is patently illegal. 4. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, appearing on behalf of the opposite party has, on the other hand, contended that in view of the fact that the learned First Appellate Court below has exercised its discretion in allowing such application sitting in revision I should not interfere with such order. 5. 4. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, appearing on behalf of the opposite party has, on the other hand, contended that in view of the fact that the learned First Appellate Court below has exercised its discretion in allowing such application sitting in revision I should not interfere with such order. 5. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after going through the materials on record in my opinion, in view of the latest Supreme Court decision in Gurdev Singh vs. Megna Ram, AIR 1997 SC 3572 it will not be proper on my part to interfere at this stage. In the said decision the apex Court has held that an Appellate Court has jurisdiction to pass order under Order 41, Rule 27 in one way or the other and that can be challenged in Second Appeal against the Appellate decree and a revisional Court under section 115 of CPC should not interfere with such order. Thus, in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. I however, make it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order before the second Appellate Court in the event the said appeal is dismissed. 6. With the aforesaid observation the revisional application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 7. Let this order be communicated to the Court below at the costs of the opposite party. Such cost is to be put in by Thursday next. Application dismissed.