JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Eviction Suit No. 48 of 1990 filed by opposite party against petitioner was dismissed on 30.5.1994. holding that there was no relationship of landlord and a tenant between the parties. 2. Opposite party, thereafter, preferred Eviction Appeal No. 17 of 1994. which is pending. In the appeal, on 19.8.1994 a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for admitting certain documents mentioned therein in additional evidence, which has been allowed by impugned order dated 31.7.1998. Petitioner has challenged the said order in the present Revision application. 3. While considering the said petition. Court of appeal below observed that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was most vital and significant issue. Opposite party produced certain documents of correspondences between the parties, relating to allotment of Companys quarters, including the suit premises to TISCO Maz-door Union. According to opposite party, those letters could not be traced out at the relevant times, therefore, were not filed in the suit. 4. Petitioner challenged those documents as forged and fabricated and called it just an effort on the part of opposite party to fill up the lacuna in its evidence. At the relevant stage, trial Court was never informed by opposite party that those documents were misplaced. 5. The Court below observed that those documents of correspondences, sought to be introduced as additional evidence were absolutely relevant to resolve the main eontroversy between the parties and also for arriving at a just decision in the case and in furtherance of substantial cause. 6. Opposite party in the said list of documents included deposition of DW 1 in the present suit, which was not required to be taken in additional evidence as it was already part of record. However, from letters dated 12.7.1978, 22.1.1983. 12.10.1984 and 21.1.1986 said to be written by Sri S.N. Singh, General secretary, TISCO Mazdoor Union were admitted in additional evidence. Petitioner was granted 15 days time to file the four original letters in question and after being marked as Exhibits, direction was given to send them with records to the trial Court to enable the parties to adduce evidence, if they so desire. The trial Court after collecting the evidence was directed to send back those materials along with entire lower Court records to the appellate Court. 7. Mr. The trial Court after collecting the evidence was directed to send back those materials along with entire lower Court records to the appellate Court. 7. Mr. Bimal Kumar, Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not the stage for the first appellate Court to assess the evidence on record to find out whether those letters were relevant for arriving at a just derision in appeal and the appropriate stage was at final hearing of the appeal. 8. Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers appellate Court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken, "subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed". Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the conditions and limitations in the matter. The rule first lays down that the appellant shall not be entitled to produce in additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court. It then proceeds to lay down classes of cases where the appellate Court may allow additional evidence to be produced. One class of the rule is whether the appellate Court requires such additional evidence for itself either to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. This class of rule also requires that when additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court, the Court shall record reason for its admission. Importance of this provision for recording reasons is for keeping a clear record of what weighed with the appellate Court in allowing additional evidence. Such reason is necessary and useful also to the Court of further appeal for deciding whether discretion under the rule was judicially exercised by the Court below and omission to record reason is. therefore, treated as a serious defect. 9. In the present case, Court of appeal below has simply observed that such evidence was required for arriving at a just decision in the case and in furtherance of substantial cause. 10. In the present case, first appellate Court passed the impugned order not in course of final hearing of the appeal or after hearing arguments of the parties on merit of the appeal and, therefore, it was more necessary to record reason for allowing additional evidence. 11. 10. In the present case, first appellate Court passed the impugned order not in course of final hearing of the appeal or after hearing arguments of the parties on merit of the appeal and, therefore, it was more necessary to record reason for allowing additional evidence. 11. The appellate Court, while hearing the appeal finally, can exercise jurisdiction one way or the other, under Order 41 Rule 27(b) and pass orders and if the order is wrong on merits, it is always open for the otherside to challenge the same in accordance with law, if an occasion arises to carry the matter in second appeal, after an appellate decree is passed. 12. I find substance in the arguments of Mr. Bimal Kumar that in the present case appropriate stage to pass orders, if any, under Order 41 Rule 27(b) was at the time of final hearing of the appeal, when the Court of appeal below was in a position to scrutinise and appreciate the evidence on record. 13. In my view there was no requirement to send the matter to the trial Court for collecting evidence, if any. after admission of additional evidence. The Court of appeal below could have done it after giving a chance of rebuttal to the other side in the appeal itself. 14. It is true that this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code cannot ordinarily interfere with an order of appellate Court granting or refusing permission to adduce additional evidence, particularly when the whole appeal is not before this Court. 15. I, therefore, (sic) reason aforesaid set aside the impugned order and direct the Court of appeal below to consider petition dated 19.8.1994 at the final hearing of Eviction Appeal No. 17 of 1994 and if necessary to collect additional evidence, if any. in the appeal itself. The appeal must be disposed of by second week of December, 2001. This Revision application is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. 16. Revision disposed of with directions.