JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 8.4.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, who accepted the application of the plaintiff-respondent for leading additional evidence subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs and directions were given to the trial Court to send a report after recording the additional evidence of the plaintiff on issue No. 1. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner : 3. A money suit was filed for a sum of Rs. 2,08,862.36 by the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation through its Managing Director against Rattan Singh. The suit was contested. Issue No. 1 was framed by the trial Court to he following effect : "Whether the Deputy Secretary/Managing Director is competent to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff ? OPP" 4. When the suit was pending at the stage of arguments, the plaintiff made an application for leading additional evidence. The learned trial Court did not accept that application and decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and in view of the finding on issue No. 1 the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the first appeal before the first Appellate Court. It was pointed out by the plaintiff before the first Appellate Court that the Court below was in error in disallowing the application for leading additional evidence. An application was moved before the first Appellate Court for leading additional evidence and that application was allowed for the reasons given in paras 9 to 11 of the impugned order, which read as follows : "9. The application filed by the plaintiff for additional evidence was disposed of by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26 .10.1994. While dismissing this application, the trial Court had held that application for additional evidence could not be moved and the stage when the arguments were heard and the case is fixed for order, in view of the principle laid down in the case law titled as M/s Ram Gopal Banarasi Dass v. Sahib Kumar etc., 1990 CC Cases 836 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further this Court was of the opinion that plaintiff has not produced the very document purported to be the authority given by the Managing Director to the Deputy Secretary, whereby authorising him to file this suit on behalf of plaintiff Corporation. 10. But in view of the above cited latest case law i.e. (2000-1) PLR 517, the application for additional evidence could be moved at any stage before the Court signs the judgment thereby determining the points in controversy involved in the suit. Then the trial Court had pre-supposed the legal value of the document, which plaintiff Corporation wanted to place on the file by way of additional evidence. In this connection, the said Corporation has placed on the file a photocopy of some proceedings/notings made in the Head Office of the plaintiff Corporation. The legal value of this document could only be adjudged when the same is proved on the file by way of formal proof as required under the law. So the approach of the learned trial Court in dismissing this application for additional evidence is not found to be correct. The document, which the plaintiff wanted to place on the file though at a belated stage is very essential to enable the Court to pronounce judgment in a more suitable manner as well as for some substantial cause as provided under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. 11. In view of the above discussion, the application of the appellant/plaintiff for additional evidence is accepted but subject to costs of Rs. 1,000/. As a result thereof the finding of the trial Court on this issue is also set aside. Now the file be sent to the trial Court concerned for recording the additional evidence of the appellant-plaintiff on issue No. 1 and to send its report within a period of three months. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 20.4.2000 and the period of above-said three months shall be counted from this date. Due opportunity be also given to he defendant-respondent for leading rebuttal to the additional evidence. The Ahlmad is also directed to send the lower Court file complete in all respects with copy of the order well before the date fixed." 6. This time the defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2000 and has filed the present revision. I have heard Mr. The Ahlmad is also directed to send the lower Court file complete in all respects with copy of the order well before the date fixed." 6. This time the defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2000 and has filed the present revision. I have heard Mr. J.S. Verka, Advocate on behalf the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first Appellate Court has allowed the plaintiff to fill in the lacuna. He submitted that under the rules of the Corporation a suit can only be instituted by the Managing Director and by no other person. In the present case, the suit has been instituted by the Deputy Secretary and even he has not been authorised by the Corporation or by the Managing Director to file the suit. In these circumstances, the first Appellate Court has committed a patent illegality in allowing the said application. 8. I do not subscribe to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A reading of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. would show that the Appellate Court has the power to allow the additional evidence if the trial Court has refused to admit the additional evidence which it ought to have admitted and further the legislature has authorised the Appellate Court to take any evidence on record for any substantial cause which is necessary for the pronouncement of the judgment. Issue No. 1 is a legal issue. If the rules only permit the Managing Director to institute the suit, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the present petitioner. If the suit has been filed by a person not authorised to file the same, the fate will still remain the same. There should be no fear in the mind of the petitioner in this regard. So far as the amendment is concerned, it cannot be said that the respondent-plaintiff wants to introduce a new case of a new cause of action. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in this revision. The same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.