Judgment :- (1). The plaintiff/petitioner filed a partition suit against the defendants/opposite parties for partition of the joint properties described in the schedule of the plaint. The said suit was decreed in part on contest against the defendant no.1 and ex parte against the rests. By the said preliminary decree the plaintiffs interest in the suit property was declared and the defendants were directed to effect partition amicably within three months. (2). The plaintiff was aggrieved by the said preliminary decree, as the effect of deed of gift executed by Nagenbala in her favour was not taken into consideration properly by the learned Trial Judge. Accordingly, he preferred an appeal for challenging the propriety of the said preliminary decree. The said appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded back to the learned Trial Court for rehearing. The learned Trial Court was directed to decide all the issues after giving opportunity to the plaintiff to make addition of necessary parties and to justify the deed of gift of Nagenbala in her favour beyond reasonable doubt as per the observation made by the learned Appeal Court. (3). The suit was again decreed in the preliminary form after such remand whereby the plaintiffs title to the extent of share in plot no.767 and 3/10th share in plot no.817 was declared. (4). The defendant no.8/opposite party no.1 herein was aggrieved by the said preliminary decree. Hence, he preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.23 of 2005 which is now pending for consideration before the learned Additional District Judge, Basirhat, North 24-parganas. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the said appellant in the said appeal inter alia praying for adducing additional evidence in the said suit. In fact, the said appellant wanted to prove the unregistered kobala executed by Ganesh Chandra Kabasi for admitting the same into evidence as, according to him if the said kobala is taken into consideration then the shares of the parties which were declared in the preliminary decree will be altered. (5). The learned Appeal Court was pleased to allow the appellants said application for additional evidence. Hence, the plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. (6). Accordingly, the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant before this Court. (7). Mr. (5). The learned Appeal Court was pleased to allow the appellants said application for additional evidence. Hence, the plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. (6). Accordingly, the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant before this Court. (7). Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the appellant who was defendant no.8 in the said suit did not file any appeal challenging the preliminary decree which was initially passed by the learned Trial Judge in the said suit before remand, he cannot maintain this appeal for challenging the preliminary decree passed in the said suit after remand. (8). Mr. Gupta further submitted that for similar reason the appellant cannot maintain this application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code as he did not make any attempt to admit the said unregistered kobala in evidence even by way of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 47 in course of hearing of the earlier appeal which was filed by the plaintiff challenging the preliminary decree which was initially passed in the said suit. Thus, Mr. Gupta criticized the impugned order in this revisional application and invited this Court to interfere with the said order. (9). This Court does not find any substance in such submission of Mr. Gupta. Even though it is found that the defendant no.8/the opposite party no.1 herein did not prefer any appeal against the initial preliminary decree passed in the suit before remand, still then, it cannot be held that the said opposite party has no right to challenge the subsequent preliminary decree which was passed in the said suit after its remand by the learned Trial Court. In fact, when the initial decree which was passed in the said partition suit, was set aside in appeal and the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court for rehearing, the initial decree which was passed in the said suit became non est in the eye of law. As such, the subsequent preliminary decree which was passed in the suit after remand is the only preliminary decree which is operative in the field. As such, any party who is aggrieved by the said decree has a right of appeal against the said decree. (10). As such, the subsequent preliminary decree which was passed in the suit after remand is the only preliminary decree which is operative in the field. As such, any party who is aggrieved by the said decree has a right of appeal against the said decree. (10). Thus, this Court cannot hold that the defendant no.8/opposite party no.1 has no right to challenge the said preliminary decree in appeal. (11). Now let me consider as to whether the said opposite party no.1 can maintain his application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code in the present appeal though admittedly he did not avail of such opportunity in the earlier appeal filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, challenging the initial preliminary decree passed by the learned Trial Judge before remand. (12). It is no doubt true that order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is available to all the parties to an appeal. As such, even though the opposite party no.1 was not an appellant in the earlier appeal but, still then, he had the right to apply for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code in the earlier appeal filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein. (13). But, still then, this Court cannot hold that simply because of the fact that the opposite party no.1 did not avail of such opportunity in the earlier appeal, he is precluded from availing of the said opportunity in the present appeal. (14). Fact remains that the opposite party no.1 wanted to bring the said unregistered kobala executed by Ganesh Chandra Kabasi in evidence even before the learned Trial Judge. The said document was included in the firishti (list of documents) filed by the said defendant in the said suit in 1989. The learned Trial Judge refused to admit the said document into evidence as, according to the learned Trial Judge an unregistered kobala is not admissible in evidence. Thus, the said opposite party was not permitted to prove the said document for admitting the same into evidence though he disclosed the said document in his firishti (list of documents) filed in the Trial Court. (15). The said opposite party now has taken the step in the appeal for adducing additional evidence so that he can prove the said unregistered kobala by evidence and get the said document exhibited in the suit. (16). (15). The said opposite party now has taken the step in the appeal for adducing additional evidence so that he can prove the said unregistered kobala by evidence and get the said document exhibited in the suit. (16). The learned Appeal Court held that since the market value of the property which was transferred by the said unregistered kobala was below Rs.100/- at the relevant time, the registration of the said kobala was not mandatory. As such, the learned Appeal Court held that the learned Trial Judge committed gross mistake in refusing to admit the said document into evidence. The learned Appeal Court, thus, permitted the opposite party no.1 to give additional evidence on the said documents. (17). On perusal of the impugned order this Court does not find any illegality therein as Order 41 Rule 27(1)(a) authorizes the appeal Court to allow a party to an appeal to give additional evidence in the appeal when it is found that the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, has refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted. (18). In my view, the instant case squarely comes within the aforesaid provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not the case of the petitioner that the shares of the parties are not dependent on the said kobala. The opposite party claims that the shares of the parties are dependent on the said kobala. Under such circumstances, when the Appeal Court finds that the said document is legal and valid document and transfer of the interest of Ganesh Chandra Kabasi can be made by such unregistered document as the value of the property so transferred was below Rs.100/-, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order as, in my view, the shares of the parties cannot be effectively determined without taking into consideration the effect of the said document. (19). Accordingly, this court does not find any justification to interfere with the order impugned. The revisional application, thus, stands rejected.