ORDER 1.Leave granted. 2. Bhuni and Jhagru were two brothers. A dispute arose in respect of certain property between the heirs of Bhuni on one hand and the heirs of Jhagru on the other. The heirs of Jhagru filed a suit claiming a share in the property. The suit was contested by the heirs of Bhuni. The question was whether the property belonged to Bhuni and Jhagru jointly or whether it belonged to Bhuni alone. The trial court held that the property belonged only to Bhuni and accordingly dismissed the suit. The first appellate court however took the view that it belonged to both Bhuni and Jhagru. This view was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. 3. The heirs of Bhuni are now in appeal before us. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had drawn the attention of the High Court to an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which had been filed on 12-9-1989 before the High Court by which the appellants had sought to produce a sale deed in favour of Bhuni and a patta of the suit land in favour of Bhuni. 4. The grievance of the appellants in this appeal is that despite having noted the aforesaid, the High Court did not decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure at all. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the High Courts jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code is a limited one and that it was not open to the appellant to seek leave under Order 41 Rule 27 to adduce fresh evidence at the stage of second appeal. It is further submitted that in any event the application of the appellants was vague and did not otherwise fall within Order 41 Rule 27. 5. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties. For the purpose of this appeal it is sufficient to note that the application should have been disposed of either by rejecting it or allowing it by the High Court before deciding the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the High Court in second appeal and remand the matter back to the High Court solely for the purpose of considering the application of the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the High Court in second appeal and remand the matter back to the High Court solely for the purpose of considering the application of the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27. Needless to say, if the application is allowed, it would be open to the High Court to reconsider the merits of the appeal as it may deem fit. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter back to the High Court for the reasons stated.