ORDER : M.R. Shah, J. Rule. Shri Hiren Modi, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein - original claimants. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties, present application is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Present application has been preferred by the applicant herein - original appellant - original opponent No.2 - insurer permitting it to produce on record additional evidence before this Court in the main First Appeal under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"). By the present application the applicant proposes to place on record the insurance policy with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that looking to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the policy was an 'Act' Policy and therefore, the liability of the applicant - insurance company to pay the compensation would be restricted liability. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that therefore the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are required to be considered while considering the main First Appeal. It is submitted that the appellant insurer did produce the cover note of the insurance policy, however the insurance policy itself was not produced on record. It is submitted that the insurance policy is required to be brought on record to do complete justice and for final determination of the issue in the appeal. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present application and to permit the applicant to produce on record the insurance policy by way of additional evidence. 3. Present application is vehemently opposed by Shri Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. He has heavily relied upon the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. It is submitted that as the insurance policy was within the knowledge of the applicant - insurance company and in fact the same was available with the applicant insurer, despite the same the applicant insurer did not place it on record and therefore, the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC are not satisfied and therefore, the applicant may not be permitted to place on record the insurance policy by way of additional evidence. 4. 4. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that initially it was the case on behalf of the applicant insurer that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the deceased was an unauthorised passenger traveling for hire or reward in a private vehicle, which has been negated by the learned Tribunal. However, now, it is alternative case on behalf of the applicant insurance company that even in such a case also, as the insurance policy was an 'Act' policy, the liability of the insurer would be limited. Therefore, to consider the aforesaid aspect and the alternative submission of the applicant, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are required to be considered. For the aforesaid purpose, the insurance policy is required to be brought on record. Therefore, for just decision and for pronouncing the judgment on the aforesaid, the applicant can be permitted to produce on record the insurance policy by way of additional evidence. Under the circumstances, the case would fall under Order 41, Rule 27 (1)(b) of the CPC. 5. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, present application is allowed. Applicant is permitted to brought on record the insurance policy with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident by way of additional evidence. However, all contentions and defences which may be available to the original claimants are kept open which may be considered in accordance with law and on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.