K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant. Respondent-Karnataka State Agro industries Limited filed a suit against the appellant herein for recovery of Rs. 71,355. 95 together with interest at 12% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of recovery and for other reliefs. The said suit was hotly contested by the appellant. Trial Court decreed the suit against the appellant for Rs. 71,355. 95 with Court costs and current interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The said judgment and decree is now under challenge. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the matter some time, it is noticed by this Court that certain documents filed by the respondent before the Trial Court were taken back by the respondent and the said documents were not available in the records sent by the Trial Court. Thereafter, Trial Court was directed to send back the entire documents. Trial Court records were secured viz. , Exs. P-6 and 7. Exs. P-6 and 7 are the books of account. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is noticed that in ex. P-7 relevant entry pertaining to the accounts of the appellant was not marked by the respondent-plaintiff. The book is marked as Ex. P-7 but the relevant pages were not marked. Since it is a suit on accounts, as the plaintiff is required to prove each and every entry, respondent- plaintiff filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC to permit him to mark the document. The said application is opposed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, relief sought by the respondent in the said application cannot be considered by this Court as the application does not satisfy the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (a) and 27 (l) (aa ). Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the application. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in smt. Pramed Kumari Bhatia v Om Prakash Bhatia and Others, wherein it is held as hereunder:"before the High Court, Pramod Kumari filed an application for reception of additional evidence. Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the application. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in smt. Pramed Kumari Bhatia v Om Prakash Bhatia and Others, wherein it is held as hereunder:"before the High Court, Pramod Kumari filed an application for reception of additional evidence. The principal additional evidence sought to be adduced was an alleged letter said to have been written by late Pearey Lal Singh to the bank nominating Pramod kumari as the person entitled to the amount in deposit with the bank. The letter itself was not filed along with the application but a request was made to summon the letter from the bank. The high Court rejected the application. The application to the High court was made very many years after the suit had been filed, and also quite some years after the appeal had been filed before the High Court, and we do not think that we will be justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to receive additional evidence at that stage. The appeal is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs". Relying upon this judgment, he requests this Court to dismiss the application. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Syed abdul Khader v Rami Reddy and Others and the State of Utter Pradesh v Manbodhan Lal Srivastava. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is noticed by this Court that whether the application filed by respondent 1 is to be considered or not and whether the Appellate Court has got discretion to secure additional evidence from the parties to enable it to pronounce judgment. It is not in dispute that Ex. P-7 was produced by the respondent before the Trial Court and the same was marked. While marking the document, the relevant entries pertaining to the transactions of the appellant was not marked by the respondent. This mistake is not even noticed by the Trial Court. The suit is based on accounts. When a suit is filed for the recovery of the amount based on accounts when the defendant has disputed the correctness of the accounts, plaintiff has to prove each and every entry of his books of account. Trial Court, without noticing that the relevant entries in Ex. The suit is based on accounts. When a suit is filed for the recovery of the amount based on accounts when the defendant has disputed the correctness of the accounts, plaintiff has to prove each and every entry of his books of account. Trial Court, without noticing that the relevant entries in Ex. P-7 are not marked, has passed the judgment in favour of the respondent by referring to such entries. During the course of arguments, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that when the relevant entries are not marked, the same should not have been looked into or considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, in the circumstances, this Court has to hold that the Trial court has committed an error in considering the relevant entries in Ex. P-7 when such entries are not marked. ( 4 ) IN this background, the Court has to consider whether the application of the respondent is for production of additional evidence in the appellate Court as per the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (a) or 27 (l) (aa) of the CPC. If the Court holds that the application of the respondent is under Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (a) or 27 (l) (aa) of the CPC, then this Court has to consider the objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Channabasappa. In such circumstances, this Court has to look into the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. But the facts involved in this case are quite contrary and different. The document was produced by the respondent and the same has been marked but the respondent failed to mark the relevant entries. In the circumstances, this Court has to hold that there are laches not only on the part of the respondent in not marking the relevant entries but also on the part of the Trial Court in not noticing this error. Therefore, in the ends of justice, application of the respondent has to be considered by holding that the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (a) and 27 (l) (aa) are not applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, in the ends of justice, application of the respondent has to be considered by holding that the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (a) and 27 (l) (aa) are not applicable to the case on hand. Then the next question that arises for consideration of this Court is that what are the powers of the Appellate Court in considering the application filed by the respondent, when the application is rejected on the ground that the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (a) and 27 (l) (aa) are not satisfied. The powers of this Court cannot be questioned in allowing the application of the respondent by exercising the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (b) of the CPC. Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (b) reads as hereunder:"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 witness to be examined". The very fact that the mistake is committed not only by the respondent, but also by the Trial Court, in order to pronounce the judgment by this court, document Ex. P-7 is to be marked properly. Either the Trial court or this Court can look into the said document and give finding on the issues only after getting the document marked. So, exercising the powers under Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (b) of the CPC, application of the respondent is to be allowed and this Court holds that additional evidence is required to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment. According to me, the ingredients of the application filed by the respondent, satisfy the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (b ). If the said application is not allowed, substantial injury will be caused to the respondent. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the Trial Court is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Trial court with a direction to dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of this order and all the contentions urged by the appellant are left open. Both the parties are entitled to adduce additional evidence if they consider it necessary. Appellant is also entitled to cross examine the witness who may be examined by the respondent. Both the parties are entitled to adduce additional evidence if they consider it necessary. Appellant is also entitled to cross examine the witness who may be examined by the respondent. Office is directed to refund the Court fee in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26-11-2001. --- *** --- .