JUDGMENT 1. - This civil second appeal under section 100 CPC is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff/tenant against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2003, whereby learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Junior 5 Division), Jaipur City (West), Jaipur. 2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff/tenant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-plaintiffs who are daughters of late Abdul Aziz, the original landlord of the plaintiff-tenant. It was referred in the plaint that the plaintiff is tenant since 1974 on monthly rent of Rs.50/- giving full description of the rented premises in pares 1 & 2 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, both the defendants forcibly tried to dispossess him. 3. In written statement the plaintiff was admitted as tenant but not in the entire premises as described in the plaint. As per defendants only one room on the first floor was on rent. 4. Issues were framed and after recording the evidence the trial Court partially decreed the suit for the properties viz. one room on the first floor, kitchen and store on the second floor and also for open terrace in front of the store room and rejected the prayer for remaining premises. In first appeal the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment affirmed the findings of the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an application W Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed in the first appellate Court and that application was decided along with the appeal itself without considering the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the original document including the register bearing particulars of the rented premises and rent paid from time to time were produced with the application and these documents were sufficient to prove the entire premises on rent. It was next submitted that the defendant-plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Jubeda expired during the pendency of the first appeal but the learned Presiding Officer without making 30 any inquiry with regard to her legal heirs decided the first appeal. 6. I have considered the said submissions in the light of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC which are as under: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. 6. I have considered the said submissions in the light of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC which are as under: 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 diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, on (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 witness 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. 7. A bare perusal of these provisions goes to show that in three situations the Appellate Court may allow the appellant to produce additional evidence but none of these conditions are applicable to the facts of this case. According to learned counsel since the original register and other original documents were misplaced during the pendency of the suit, hence the same could not be produced although photo copies were already on record and thus the First Appellate Court failed to exercise its power to allow additional evidence. Having considered these submission. I find no merit as the First Appellate Court after considering this application rightly observed that no such prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court that the original register is misplaced and secondary evidence may be permitted. It was also observed by the First Appellate Court that other documents are not relevant to decide the point in controversy and I find no perversity in the conclusion drawn by the First Appellate Court. It was also observed by the First Appellate Court that other documents are not relevant to decide the point in controversy and I find no perversity in the conclusion drawn by the First Appellate Court. With regard to second point, also there is no merit as one application on behalf of the appellant was submitted in the First Appellate Court with regard to fact of death of respondent No. 2 and in reply it was submitted that except the respondent No.1, none-else is her legal heir and no objection whatsoever was raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to any other legal heir of deceased-respondent No.2. 8. Consequently, this second appeal along with any application is dismissed at the admission stage.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******