JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC filed against the order dated 16.10.1997 passed by Shri K.K. Acharya, District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Appeal No. 46/93 whereby the application moved by the defendants - petitioners under Order 41, R. 27 and Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. The non - petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in respect of the disputed shop against the defendants-petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of sub-letting and bona fide necessity. The plaintiff alleged that the disputed shop was first let out on 1.2.1972 to defendant Bhikharam and possession was handed over on the same day. A rent note Ex. 1 dated 1.2.1972 was executed by Bhikharam in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant, in its reply, denied the aforesaid averments and it was averred that as a matter of fact that shop was let out by the plaintiff to both the defendants in the month of November, 1971. Since then they have been occupying the shop as tenants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The issues framed were as under : (i) whether rent note dated 1.2.1972 has been executed by defendant No. 1? (ii) Whether the disputed premises was taken on rent by the defendants No. 1 & 2 jointly since November, 1971 and not that defendant No. 1 had executed the rent note? (ii) Whether after the partition between the defendant Nos. 1 & 2, the defendant No. 2 has become sole tenant of the disputed premises? 3. In order to discharge burden of proof regarding issue No. 2, the defendants examined themselves and they also summoned Mahendra Kumar Sharma Inspector, Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi as witnesses. The defendants were carrying on business in the shop in the name and style "M/s. Ambeshwarji Kashida Bhandar". The said commercial establishment was duly registered with the Inspector, Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi on 18.11.1971. The registration No. was 751/71. The defendants produced the third copy of the registration before the learned trial Court. However, by mistake in registration certificate, the registration No. recorded was 751/93 instead of 751/71. It was subsequently rectified. The petitioners have stated that their witness Mahendra Kumar Sharma appeared before the Court with the registration register on 19.5.1993. The registration No. was 751/71. The defendants produced the third copy of the registration before the learned trial Court. However, by mistake in registration certificate, the registration No. recorded was 751/93 instead of 751/71. It was subsequently rectified. The petitioners have stated that their witness Mahendra Kumar Sharma appeared before the Court with the registration register on 19.5.1993. While he was being examined by the counsel for the defendants and the registration register was being exhibited, learned counsel for the plaintiff objected and the learned trial Court sustained the objection and entries in the register could not be exhibited. The trial Court, on account of over-writing/correction in Ex. A-2, held the same as not proved and the stand taken by the defendants that they were occupying the disputed shop as tenant since November, 1971 was not accepted. Eventually, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court on 21.7.1993. Against the above judgment and decree, the petitioners-defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirohi which is pending decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners have preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the appellate Court praying for taking the documents on record and for calling the Inspector along with the original documents for adducing additional evidence : (i) The receipt dated 18.11.1971 whereby the registration fee was deposited for the registration of the commercial establishment Ambershwar Kashida Bhandar. (ii) The Vth copy of the registration certificate dated 25.1.1991 issued by Inspector, Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi wherein the renewal for the year 1991 upto 1994 has been recorded. (iii) The application dated 17.8.1993 moved by the defendant Tulsi Ram along with the order dated 17.8.1993 passed by the Inspector on the said application. (iv) The certificate dated 17.8.1993 issued by the Inspector. 4. The non-petitioner-plaintiff did not file any reply to the application of the petitioners. The learned appellate Court proceeded to decide the above application after hearing both the parties and vide order dated 16.10.1997. The learned District Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners to summon the Inspector, Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi as a witness along with the relevant record for recording his statement. The prayer of the petitioners for taking receipt on record has also been rejected. The learned District Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners to summon the Inspector, Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi as a witness along with the relevant record for recording his statement. The prayer of the petitioners for taking receipt on record has also been rejected. However, with regard to the documents referred to at serial number 2 to 4, the trial Court did not decide their admissibility and postponed the same till the hearing of the case. 5. I have heard Shri Sangeet Lodha appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Pradeep Shah appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner. 6. Shri Lodha has assailed the above order on the ground that the appellate Court has committed material illegality and irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction. The appellate Court did not examine the matter in its correct perspective. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner go to the root of the matter. The petitioners also explained the reason why the above documents could not be produced at the trial Court. Regarding receipt, the explanation offered by the petitioners was that the same could not be traced till 20.8.1993. On 20.8.1993 this document was found lying in old papers. The admissibility of these documents is very essential in order to enable the appellate Court to pronounce the judgment properly. It is also necessary to examine Mahendra Kumar Sharma in order to prove these documents. The petitioners made a categorical statement that they were prevented to exhibit the relevant entries of the registration register when Mahendra Kumar Sharma was being examined as a witness before the trial Court. An objection was raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party and the Court was pleased to sustain the same. The petitioners filed an affidavit in support of this statement, it has not been controverted by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. It appears that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner-plaintiff regarding the production of the relevant entries of the register brought by Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma was not recorded by the trial Court in the order-sheet or in the statement of the above witness. However, the petitioners have made a categorical statement that such an objection was raised and upheld by the trial Court. The observations of the learned appellate Court regarding the receipt dated 18.11.1971 are also not tenable. However, the petitioners have made a categorical statement that such an objection was raised and upheld by the trial Court. The observations of the learned appellate Court regarding the receipt dated 18.11.1971 are also not tenable. The petitioners filed an affidavit to the effect that the above document was traced-out only on 20.8.1993. The affidavit filed by the petitioners was not controverted by the plaintiff non-petitioner by filing any counter affidavit. The above document is a very material and relevant and would enable the Court to pronounce judgment in a proper way. The learned appellate Court committed a grave error in postponing his decision with regard to documents 2 to 4. When the learned appellate Court was proceeding to examine the application filed by the petitioner on merits, it was not proper to pronounce opinion with regard to one document and postpone the decision with regard to the other documents. This was a very irregular exercise of jurisdiction inviting interference in this petition. 7. Shri Lodha has placed reliance on the following cases: Smt. Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2592 , Official Asignee v. Subhkaran, AIR 1974 Raj. 49 , Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy, AIR 1979 SC 553 , Prabhu Dayal v. Ramswaroop & Ors., 1988 (2) RLR 36 and K. Venkataramiah v. Seetha Rama Reddy & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526 . 8. In Official Asignee v. Subhkaran's case, it was held that the document being a public document and the genuineness being beyond doubt, the appellate Court can permit it to be taken in evidence. In Saiyed Abdul Khader's case, the Supreme Court held that if the Court hearing the action requires any document so as to enable it to pronounce judgment, it has the jurisdiction to permit additional evidence. In Prahbudayal's case, it was held that the Court hearing the matter in appeal has ample jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to allow additional evidence, oral or documentary, it should be, relevant and material for purpose of deciding the real controversy. In Prahbudayal's case, it was held that the Court hearing the matter in appeal has ample jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to allow additional evidence, oral or documentary, it should be, relevant and material for purpose of deciding the real controversy. In K. Venkatarainiah's case the following observations were made by the Apex Court with regard to the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC : "The object of Rule 27(2) clearly is to keep a clear record of what weighted with the appellate Court in allowing the additional evidence to be produced-whether this was done on the ground (i) that the Court appealed from had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (ii) it allowed it because it required it to enable it to pronounce judgment in the appeal or (iii) it allowed this for any other substantial cause." 9. Shri Shah has supported the impugned order. He referred to the detailed order in which the learned appellate Court took pains to examine the matter on merits. The learned District Judge, with regard to the receipt, held that from the statement of the defendants it was clear that they were in the know of the existence of the receipt even before their statements were recorded. Hence the defendants were in a position to produce the same in the trial Court. The defendants have not given any reason why the same was not produced at the trial Court. The affidavit given by the defendants is, therefore, not correct. In view of the admission of the petitioners that they were knowing about the receipt even before their statements made the matter easy for the learned appellate Court to disallow the reception of the above document in evidence. He also referred to the observation of the learned District Judge that though it was very vociferously argued there that an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiff when Mahendra Kumar Sharma was being examined when the defendants' counsel wanted to exhibit relevant entries of the registration register brought by the above witness, no such objection was raised before the trial Court because it has not been so recorded either in the statement of the witness or in the order-sheet. The petitioners have also not made any written objection. Hence this argument is without any basis. The petitioners have also not made any written objection. Hence this argument is without any basis. Learned District Judge, therefore, felt no difficulty incoming to definite conclusion that the statement of Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma cannot be allowed to be recorded again. Regarding the other documents, the view taken by the learned District Judge is in accordance with the provisions of the Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the appellate Court has right to consider the admissibility of these documents at the time of hearing the arguments on the merits of the appeal. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence may be received by the appellate Court if appellant satisfies the Court that after the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced when the appeal was decided against him. The normal rule is that under Order 41 Rule 27 it is not open to the appellate Court to admit additional evidence in appeal before the appeal is heard. The legitimate occasion for admitting additional evidence is when on examining records and inherent defect is found. The appellate Court will be placed in a better position to appreciate the matter when it considers the prayer of the appellant made u /0. 41 Rule 27 CPC when the appeal is considered on mrits. It is, therefore, correct that ordinarily it is not desirable to hear an application for further evidence till appellate Court has heard the appeal and considered the evidence already on record. 11. In the instant case, though the appellate Court preferred to postpone its decision with regard to the admissibility of documents at serial Nos. 2 to 4 it chose to give its verdict as regards the admissibility of document No. 1. Similarly, the learned appellate Court pronounced its decision prohibiting the re-examination of witness Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma. I feel that the learned appellate Court ought to have postponed its decision on these two matters also. Be that as it may, the learned appellate Court has not committed any error in rejecting the admissibility of the receipt because after examining the evidence of the petitioners, the Court held that these witnesses were aware of the existence of the receipt even before their statements were recorded. Be that as it may, the learned appellate Court has not committed any error in rejecting the admissibility of the receipt because after examining the evidence of the petitioners, the Court held that these witnesses were aware of the existence of the receipt even before their statements were recorded. In other words, the petitioners were having a conscious knowledge about the existence of the receipt and nothing prevented them from filing the same before the trial Court even before their statements were recorded or after that. The petitioners have given a 'wrong explanation that they could only trace-out the above receipt on 20.8.1993. In view of the admission made by the petitioners, the above explanation was not worthy of credence. Hence the learned appellate Court did not feel any difficulty in pronouncing its verdict as regards the admissibility of the receipt even without referring the merits of the case. The view expressed by the learned appellate Court to postpone its decision regarding the admissibility of documents 2 to 4 till the hearing of the appeal cannot be assailed on any ground. Regarding the order of the appellate Court declining permission to re-examine Mahendra Kumar Sharma, I feel that the matter must have been pronounced along with the order on the admissibility of the above documents. If the Court finds that the examination of this witness is necessary for proving the above documents, if admitted, the Court should have permitted the same. I am of opinion that the appellate Court can be directed to reconsider its decision for the re-examination of Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with the question of admissibility of the above remaining documents. 12. For the above reasons, I do not find any force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed but the learned appellate Court is directed to reconsider its order as regards the re-examination of witness Mahendra Kumar Sharma along with the matter of the admissibility of the documents 2 to 4.Revision dismissed. *******