Judgment A.K. Yog, J. (1) Ifran Ahmad Plaintiff (Respondent No. 2) filed Original Suit No. 83 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif, Hawaii, Saharanpur against Mohammad Ahmad, Defendant (present petitioner) copy of plaint has been filed as Annexure-1. Plain tiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was tenant over the property in dispute, a shop situate Qasba Chilkana, Pargana Sultanpur, District Saharanpur at the rate of Rs. 10. He claimed decree for ejectment and possession, arrears of rent and damages and other usual reliefs. After Defendant was served and parties had led evidence, Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 28.11.1987 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition). The plaintiff being, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1981. (2) It is interesting to note that none of the parties raised objection regarding jurisdiction i.e. the plaintiff's suit, on the face of it being between the landlord and tenant was cognizable only in Small Causes Court. Be that as it may be, during appeal an application was filed for filing additional evidence in the light of the amendment in the pleadings. Copy of the application dated 13.7.1986 for seeking amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the appeal has been annexed as Annexure CA-1. The Appellate Authority, after considering material or record, passed impugned order dated 7.1.1998 allowing additional evidence to be filed by the plaintiff in the light of the amendment in the pleadings (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition), The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that additional evidence should not have been allowed and relies in view of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure. (3) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I find that additional evidence, in the facts of the instant case, has been allowed in view of the amendment in the pleading. Once order permit ting to amend pleading has become final and pleadings have been accordingly amended, the concerned parties will be consequently required to file additional evidence as otherwise the pleadings will lose its efficacy. In view of the above, I do not find manifest error apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 7.1.1988. Once order permit ting to amend pleading has become final and pleadings have been accordingly amended, the concerned parties will be consequently required to file additional evidence as otherwise the pleadings will lose its efficacy. In view of the above, I do not find manifest error apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 7.1.1988. (4) It will be noted that clause (aa) of Order XLT, Rule 27 (1), Code of Civil Procedure provides a 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 exercise of due diligence, be produced and again clause (b) of the said provision further contemplates that if 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. Pleadings have been amended. Good ground showing sufficient cause is made and no fault can be found with the impugned order. Accordingly writ petition lacks merits and it is, accordingly dismissed. No costs. Considering the facts that appeal has remained pending in view of the interim order dated 20.14.1988 of this Court, I direct the Appellate Authority to decide the case as expeditiously as possible. Petition dismissed.