Judgment : 1. The above Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law : a) Whether the Judgments of the Courts below are vitiated on account of non-consideration of documentary evidence namely PW1/K being acknowledgment of Appellant's right in respect of Survey no. 2/6 by Respondent no. 1/Defendant no. 1? b) Whether the Appellate Court was right in holding that the Appellant has not led evidence to rebut presumption arise under Section 105 of Land Revenue Code about the entries in the occupants column of record of rights in Form I and XIV? c) Whether the Appellate Court was right in dismissing the application to produce additional documents without first hearing the appeal on merits? d) Whether the Appellate Court should have heard the application for production of additional documents at the time of hearing the appeal on merits as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. T. N. Sahani & Ors. ( 2001 (10) SCC 619 )? 2. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. None for the Respondents, though served. 3. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, before going into the merits of the dispute in the above Appeal, has pointed out that during the course of the proceedings before the Lower Appellate Court, the Appellant has filed an application dated 16.12.2003 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to produce additional documents which came to be dismissed by an Order dated 10.03.2005. The learned Counsel has taken me through the said Order and pointed out that the learned Judge has essentially dismissed the said application without any application of mind on the ground that the predicates of Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, has not been strictly complied with. The learned Counsel has pointed out that it was not open to the learned Judge to examine the relevance of the said documents at that stage as such aspect could be considered only at the time of the final hearing of the Appeal. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was no direction by the Court to produce such documents when such aspect would have to be examined only at the final hearing of the Appeal. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that there was no direction by the Court to produce such documents when such aspect would have to be examined only at the final hearing of the Appeal. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Award which was sought to be produced is a Judgment passed inter parties between the parties wherein the subject matter of the acquisition was part of the larger property which forms part of the suit property. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Award produced by the Appellant was along with two private agreements between the parties which, according to him, conclusively establishes that in view of the apportionment of the compensation with regard to the remaining larger property, the suit property was to be allotted to the Appellant. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order to that effect and pointed out that non-consideration of the said document has resulted in grave injustice to the Appellant inasmuch as conclusive materials produced by the Appellant has been discarded. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in case this Court permits the Appellant to produce such document, the matter would have to be re-appreciated by the Lower Appellate Court in accordance with law. 4. Before going into the merits of the contentions raised and considering the submissions of Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, I find that the basic dispute raised by the Appellant is that there is a larger property situated in the Village of Borim which belonged originally to the co-owners which consists of the Appellant and the Respondents. It is further the case of the Appellant that 1/7th share of the property belonged to the Respondent no. 1 and the remaining 6/7th share belonged to the Appellant and the remaining Respondents in the above Appeal. According to the Appellant, 3/14th share in the property belongs to the Appellant whereas the remaining 9/14th share belongs to the remaining Respondent nos. 2 to 6. 1 and the remaining 6/7th share belonged to the Appellant and the remaining Respondents in the above Appeal. According to the Appellant, 3/14th share in the property belongs to the Appellant whereas the remaining 9/14th share belongs to the remaining Respondent nos. 2 to 6. It is further the case of the Appellant that a substantial portion of the property has been acquired by the Government and, according to him, in view of a private understanding between all the co-owners the share of compensation attributed to his share in the whole property was reduced and as the Appellant was having a house in a portion of the suit property, the said area was left exclusively to belong to the Appellant. It is further the case of the Appellant that to substantiate the said contention, the Appellant wanted to produce the said Award which according to the Appellant conclusively establishes the oral understanding between the parties to that effect. 5. On perusal of the said Order passed by the learned Judge dated 10.03.2005, I find that the learned Judge has essentially dismissed the said application on the ground that the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the Civil Procedure Code has not been complied with. Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the Civil Procedure Code reads thus: ”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) … (aa) … (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.” 6. On plain reading of the said provision, it is evidence that the requirements to allow the production of such additional evidence is a matter which would have to be examined only at the time of appreciating the evidence on record at the time of the final hearing of the Appeal when the evidence adduced by the parties is being appreciated. This aspect cannot be examined in a piecemeal manner as sought to be done by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order. This aspect cannot be examined in a piecemeal manner as sought to be done by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order. In the present case, the documents which are sought to be produced were in fact to the knowledge of the Appellant and the Respondents as it is not in dispute that they were parties to the proceedings before the Reference Court which was the subject matter of the said Award. Apart from that, the Judgment which is inter parties can always be relied upon by the Court to examine the veracity or otherwise of the contentions raised by the parties. In the present case, it is not in dispute that a substantial portion of the larger property was the subject matter of the said proceedings and, as such, considering that the Award was inter partes, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Order dated 10.03.2005 and refuse leave to the Appellant to produce the said documents. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that there is enough material to suggest that the said Award dated 11.03.1981 along with the two private documents which are attached to the said Award, are referable to the property which is the subject matter of the dispute before the Appellate Court, I find, in the interest of justice, that the Appellant should be given leave to produce the said documents. The authenticity or relevance of the said documents is a matter which the learned Judge would have to examine on its own merits on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. The contention of Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel, to the effect that the authenticity and the averments of the Appellant in the pleadings have not been disputed by the Respondents is a matter which the learned Judge would also examine whilst re-appreciating the evidence on record. The contention of Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel, to the effect that the authenticity and the averments of the Appellant in the pleadings have not been disputed by the Respondents is a matter which the learned Judge would also examine whilst re-appreciating the evidence on record. Considering that in an Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court cannot re-appreciate the material and come to any contrary finding, I find it appropriate in the interest of justice to grant leave to the Appellant to produce the said documents as referred to in the said application dated 16.12.2003 and set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 30.09.2005 and direct the Lower Appellate Court to decide the Appeal afresh after permitting the Appellant to produce the said documents in accordance with law. The substantial questions of law (c) and (d) are answered accordingly. 8. In view of the findings whilst disposing of substantial questions of law (c) and (d), it would not be appropriate to examine the substantial questions of law (a) and (b) as framed by this Court as it may influence the learned Judge whilst deciding the said appeal afresh. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (I) The Appeal is partly allowed. (II) The impugned Judgment dated 30.09.2005, is quashed and set aside. Regular Civil Appeal No. 116 of 2002 is restored to the file of the Lower Appellate Court. (III) The Lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the said Appeal afresh in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (IV) All the contentions of both the parties on merits are left open. (V) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.