H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises from the judgment and order dated 8-2-1994 passed by civil judge, arasikere on an application la. I under order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved in r. A. No. 20 of 1992, rejecting that application after having opined that the appellant has failed to show or to make out a case to permit him to adduce additional evidence under order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. It is further observed that the approach of the appellant seeking the relief for production of additional evidence is not fair and honest. The lower appellate court has further observed in its order that the plaintiffs application is not of an ordinary prudent man, but he is a school teacher. If he is required to sell property under some deed, he would not have forgotten to mention the said fact that he would not have forgotten to produce the said document in support of his case ao as to establish his own title. It appears that appellant has slept over his rights for the reasons best known to him and when his attempt to get the decree from the trial court has gone in vain, he has come up with the said application before that court and filed la. I. Of course, negligence that is committed by the plaintiff in non-production of the document rather cannot be cured at this stage. With these observations, the appellate court rejected the appellant's application under order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. Thus, feeling aggrieved from this order the plaintiff-appellant has come up before this court by filing the present civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri G. Lingappa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Rudragowda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised about the maintainability of the revision petition as well on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from illegality and it has affected the right of the appellant to produce the evidence. ( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised about the maintainability of the revision petition as well on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from illegality and it has affected the right of the appellant to produce the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference in this connection to the famous decision of their lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Major S. S. khanna v Brig. F. J. Dillon, and on that basis submitted that the order impugned may be held to be case decided. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that with respect to the merits of the application, that aa per the affidavit the documents were not within the applicant's knowledge, in spite of the exercise of due diligence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the allegations made in the affidavit have not been considered by the lower appellate court while rejecting the application. The learned counsel further contended that in the affidavit it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant is owner of suit property and to substantiate his title to suit property he wants to produce some documents, he has acquired the property from his own income while he was in service. But that document which he haa traced was not within his knowledge in spite of due diligence and I could not produce before the trial court at the time of adducing the evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the court below has acted illegally in rejecting the application on unwarranted grounds. The petitioner's counsel's contention which was on merits was also controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to paras 2, 6 and 7 of the judgment of the court below and Sri Rudragowda, submitted that the averments in para 2 have not been relied by the court below and the court below after considering the allegations of para 2 really opined that no case has been made out by applicant for being permitted to adduce additional evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the plaintiff has been negligent and because of negligence the document might have not been produced. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the plaintiff has been negligent and because of negligence the document might have not been produced. He further contended that there is no question of jurisdictional error on the part of the court below in rejecting the application. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that in view of the facts found, the application under order 41, Rule 27 was liable to be rejected and as such the court below did not commit any error or jurisdictional error in dismissing or rejecting the plaintiffs-revisionist's application under order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. The revision as such deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards to preliminary objection, in my opinion, there is much substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case decided, in view of the law laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of major s. s. khanna, supra, is not synonymous with the suit decided or appeal decided. The expression of the case decided, is no doubt a term of wrder import, it may include the part of the proceedings as well. This decision of the Supreme Court has been taken note by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal and another v Filmistan distributors (india) private limited and others and in para 10 at page 410 their lordships after having referred to the case of major s. s. khanna's case, supra, observed that:"but it was not decided in major s. s. khanna's case, supra, that every order of the court in the course of a suit amounts to a case decided. A case may be said to be decided, if the court adjudicates for the purpose of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure". A case may be said to be decided, if the court adjudicates for the purpose of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure". it leads to that an order which could amount to a case decided must be one deciding some right or obligation of parties in controversy, at least tor the purpose of the case, i. e. suit and not the order only for the progress of case nor any order made in routine way for the progress of suit or case. It must be an order whereunder some right of the parties may be for the purpose of suit or proceedings has been decided. The Code of Civil Procedure as amended by act No. 104, as per the explanation, the expression "case decided" has been explained. It will be appropriate to refer to that explanation. The explanation to Section 115 reads as under:"in this Section the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings". ( 6 ) THE expression 'order' has been decided in the definition in Section 2, clause (1) of the code and the 'order means, the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree'. In the present case, the question has to be examined is as to whether the plaintiff had a right to file an additional evidence under order 41, Rule 27 of the code. It will be appropriate to quote order 41, Rule 27, which reads as under: "rule 27. Production of additional evidence in appellate court. (1) the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the appellate court. It will be appropriate to quote order 41, Rule 27, which reads as under: "rule 27. Production of additional evidence in appellate court. (1) 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 exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge, or could not after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at 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 witnesses to be examined. (2) wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate court, the court shall record the reason for its admission". The principal clause firstly discloses that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the appellate court. Thus no party could have to produced additional evidence, whether oral or documentary before the appellate court as of right. That order 41, Rule 27 provides no party shall be entitled to produce additional evidence at the stage of appeal. Therefore there is no question of any right of parties, nor of its being decided or of being deprived thereof by order of rejection. ( 7 ) NO doubt, the court has been given some power in certain special circumstances to admit additional evidence, namely, those given under clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of order 41, Rule 27 (1), case of the appellant is not to the effect that the court below from whose judgment and decree the appeal has been preferred had or has refused to admit the evidence sought to be filed. It is not the case of the appellant, which may be said to fall under clause (a ). It has been stated in affidavit and also it has been referred to by the trial court in its judgment, which reads as under:"the brief averments as could be seen from i. a. I are. It is not the case of the appellant, which may be said to fall under clause (a ). It has been stated in affidavit and also it has been referred to by the trial court in its judgment, which reads as under:"the brief averments as could be seen from i. a. I are. That this appellant-plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. To substantiate his title to the suit schedule property he wants to produce some document. He has acquired the property while he was in service. But that document which now he has traced was not well within his knowledge in spite of the due diligence when he gave his evidence before the trial court. No such hardship will be caused to the respondents. But if the said i. a. is not allowed, it is the plaintiff-appellant who will be put to untold hardship". it appears that the court below has taken note of this affidavit or the allegations in the application. The lower appellate court after taking into consideration the affidavit has as per observation in para 7 of the judgment, it disbelieved the appellant's allegations. ( 8 ) THE lower appellate court opined that there was only negligent attitude by the applicant-plaintiff in not producing the said documents or in non-production of the documents. . The power of the court to admit the additional document or evidence is of order 41, Rule 27, but no case under clause (a) thereof has been made by the appellant- plaintiff. If clause (a) case would have been made out the party could be allowed to adduce the additional evidence. Under Rule 27 (1) (aa)the party seeking to adduce additional evidence has to satisfy the appellate court that such evidence, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at or before the time when the decree under the appeal was passed. In the present case, the permission to adduce or produce the additional evidence or documents could be allowed, if the parties concerned would have made out a case in terms of the rules. The plaintiff-appellant has been negligent and though he had knowledge of the documents but he failed to produce the same at an appropriate time. In the present case, the permission to adduce or produce the additional evidence or documents could be allowed, if the parties concerned would have made out a case in terms of the rules. The plaintiff-appellant has been negligent and though he had knowledge of the documents but he failed to produce the same at an appropriate time. Therefore, after coming to know of the mistake committed by him he approached the court with an application under order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. Moreover, the plaintiff-appellant submits that he is a school master and the property involved in the present case is purchased while he was in service. The lower appellate court has observed this aspect of the matter while it rejecting the application to adduce the additional evidence or to produce the additional documents, under order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. This is a finding of fact that the court below has held that really the conduct of the applicant is nothing but of negligence on his part and this attitude resulted in non-production of the documents, well within time. I also find that there has been no case for exercise of jurisdiction by first appellate court, to allow the application and for permitting the parties to produce the additional documents. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate court is justified and right in holding that the party was not entitled to adduce additional evidence or to produce additional documents in support of his case. ( 9 ) FURTHER, I would like to place a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court decided in the case of Sunder Lal and Son v Bharat handicrafts private limited. In para 7 material observations are contained, which read as follows:"we do not require additional evidence to be produced in this case to enable us to pronounce judgment, nor do we think that any substantial cause is made out which would justify an order allowing additional evidence to be led at this stage. The document relied upon was admittedly in the possession of the appellants, but they did not rely upon it before the high court. It was said at the bar that the importance of the document was not realised by those in charge of the case. The document relied upon was admittedly in the possession of the appellants, but they did not rely upon it before the high court. It was said at the bar that the importance of the document was not realised by those in charge of the case. We do not think that the plea would bring the case within the expression 'other substantial cause' in order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure". ( 10 ) THUS considered, I am of the considered view that this revision petition has got no merits and as such is hereby dismissed, as the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The parties to bear their own costs respectively. --- *** --- .