JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - This is Second Appeal from Order preferred by Gian Singh. It is unfortunate litigation among siblings. 2. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against respondents as defendants. Respondents no.2 to 4 are real brothers of the appellant, whereas respondents no.5 and 6 are their sisters. Contesting defendant no.1 is their maternal uncle, as stated by counsel for the appellant. The dispute relates to inheritance of Bhagwan Kaur – mother of appellant and respondents no.2 to 6. Appellant in the suit claimed natural succession and accordingly claimed 1/6th share in the land left by Bhagwan Kaur. The plaintiff challenged alleged Will dated 06.12.1999, said to have been executed by Bhagwan Kaur in favour of defendant no.1 only. 3. Defendant no.3 was proceeded ex-parte, whereas remaining defendants pleaded that Bhagwan Kaur, in sound disposing mind, executed registered Will dated 06.12.1999 in favour of defendant no.1 alone, who is, therefore, exclusive owner in possession of the suit land left by Bhagwan Kaur. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ropar, vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.2010, decreed the plaintiff’s suit because defendants failed to produce the original Will dated 06.12.1999 and also failed to examine any attesting witness thereof, as was mandatory requirement of law. 5. Defendant no.1 filed first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. During pendency of the appeal, defendant no.1 moved application for additional evidence alleging that at the time of sanction of mutation on the basis of aforesaid Will, defendants no.5 and 6 gave affidavits admitting the Will. Mutation was sanctioned on the basis of said Will in spite of objection by plaintiff-appellant herein. It was alleged that defendant no.1 was under the impression that revenue authority had already recorded statement of witness of the Will, while sanctioning the mutation and had kept the original Will, and therefore, the original Will could not be produced in the trial court in this suit. Accordingly, defendant no.1 sought permission to lead additional evidence to produce the original Will and to prove the same by examining attesting witness thereof. 6. Accordingly, defendant no.1 sought permission to lead additional evidence to produce the original Will and to prove the same by examining attesting witness thereof. 6. Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rupnagar, vide impugned judgment dated 14.11.2011, allowed application of defendant no.1 for additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost and consequently remanded the suit to trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law after taking additional evidence and after giving opportunity to the opposite party to lead evidence in rebuttal thereof. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) were not kept in view by the lower appellate court while permitting additional evidence in first appeal. It was also contended that application for additional evidence was moved 01 year and 02 months after the filing of the first appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. 10. The lower appellate court has taken care of provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, while permitting the additional evidence in first appeal. It has been specifically observed in the impugned judgment that the proposed additional evidence would help the Court to determine the matter in controversy completely and effectively and it would not take the plaintiff by surprise, he being fully aware of the real controversy between the parties. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC provides that appellate court may permit additional evidence inter alia on the ground that the appellate court requires the additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. In the instant case, the lower appellate court has rightly observed that the proposed additional evidence will help the Court in determining the controversy completely and effectively. Consequently, proposed additional evidence has been rightly allowed by the lower appellate court, on payment of cost. 11. It may be noticed that defendants no.2 to 6, who are brothers and sisters of the plaintiff-appellant himself, have admitted the claim of defendant no.1 based on impugned Will dated 06.12.1999, allegedly executed by mother of plaintiff and defendants no.2 to 6. Consequently, proposed additional evidence has been rightly allowed by the lower appellate court, on payment of cost. 11. It may be noticed that defendants no.2 to 6, who are brothers and sisters of the plaintiff-appellant himself, have admitted the claim of defendant no.1 based on impugned Will dated 06.12.1999, allegedly executed by mother of plaintiff and defendants no.2 to 6. This admission by defendants no.2 to 6 adversely effects their own rights in the suit land because in case of intestate succession, they would also have inherited 1/6th share each in the land left by their mother. In addition to it, original Will was produced before revenue authorities. At the time of sanction of mutation, on the basis of said Will, plaintiff raised objection to the mutation challenging the Will. However, the revenue authorities, after contest, sanctioned the said mutation. It is the case of defendant no.1 in application for additional evidence that original Will was kept by the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings and attesting witness has been examined in mutation proceedings. In these circumstances, if for some reason, the original Will was not produced in the trial court and any attesting witness thereof was not examined in the trial court, defendant no.1 has been rightly allowed to lead evidence in this regard by the lower appellate court. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is justified and does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed in limine. It goes without saying that nothing observed herein before shall effect the merits of the suit. --------------