JUDGMENT : 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Appellants/Original Plaintiffs challenging the judgment and order rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2009 by the learned Additional District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad confirming the judgment and order rendered in Regular Civil Suit No. 475 of 1997 by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad dated 19.3.2016 on the questions of law as posed in the present Second Appeal: (i) When it is admitted that the license of the market committee was in the name of deceased Ramabhai Shankerbhai, on his death whether all the heirs of the deceased inherit that property or not? (ii) Whether the business done by Ramabhai and all other heirs (son etc.) was a joint family business or not and whether the lower court has erred in concluding that it is not a joint family business? (iii) In light of the additional evidence, whether the lower appellate court has committed an error in rejecting the same? (iv) What is the effect if the said documents are considered upon the merits of the matter and whether the documents received under the Right to Information Act can be discarded when it is forming part of the public record, namely, documents coming from the custody of the market committee and Municipal Corporation of Nadiad? (v) Whether the understanding between the family members requires any registration of any document, more particularly, when, license and right to carry on the business in the ring or market stall has come in succession and when no immovable property is involved in the matter. If yes, then whether the lower appellate court is right in rejecting the evidence on the ground of non-registration? 2. Heard learned Counsel Shri M.B. Gandhi for the Appellants and learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia for the Respondents. 3. Learned Counsel Shri Gandhi referred to the papers and also the Civil Application for additional evidence and made the submissions at length that the documentary evidence have not been considered and if they are allowed to be produced here in this Second Appeal, it would be relevant for deciding the issue, which has not been considered by the court below. Learned Counsel Shri Gandhi referred to the papers and also the Civil Application for additional evidence and made the submissions at length that the documentary evidence have not been considered and if they are allowed to be produced here in this Second Appeal, it would be relevant for deciding the issue, which has not been considered by the court below. For that purpose, he has referred to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23(A) which provide for remand of the case and tried to submit that the Civil Application No. 3531 of 2016 for additional evidence may be allowed and the suit may be remanded for fresh hearing on the basis of the additional evidence and therefore, it may be remanded back for decision on the basis of the additional evidence. He has also referred to Order 41 Rule 24 and 25 also and emphasized that there is no bar in deciding the issues raised in the Appeal for the purpose of remanding the matter back to the trial court. Learned Counsel Shri Gandhi submitted that the lower appellate court has merely considered the reasons recorded by the trial court and has failed to give its own reasons and therefore the order is bad. He has also referred to Rule 56 that the documents which the Appellants have obtained from the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, would be admissible; like the register or the entries made in the register maintained by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee. He submitted that the lower appellate court has therefore misdirected in observing that it may not be considered as admissible as it has not been registered. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia submitted that there are two concurrent findings of facts, and therefore, the scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code is very limited. He submitted that the questions of law which have been posed are required to be considered as essentially they are questions of fact on appreciation of evidence, which have been decided by both the courts below. He therefore submitted that the present Second Appeal may not be entertained. 5. Learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia has also submitted that had the Appellants been vigilant they could have produced either at the time of the trial or at least at the stage of first appellate court. He therefore submitted that the present Second Appeal may not be entertained. 5. Learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia has also submitted that had the Appellants been vigilant they could have produced either at the time of the trial or at least at the stage of first appellate court. However, as the Appellants have failed to do so, it is not open for them to make such application for additional evidence in the Second Appeal and therefore such application may not be entertained. He submitted that if it is entertained, it would lead to considering the evidence without it is established at the trial. Similarly, he submitted that if the matter is remanded, there has to be a justification and merely because the Appellant has failed and neglected to get the necessary evidence produced, it cannot be a ground to entertain such application or the Second Appeal. Learned Advocate Shri Bhargav Karia has also submitted that therefore such an application for additional evidence before the High Court is not permissible. He also referred to the Application for additional evidence at Exh.9 before the first appellate court and submitted that essentially it is an application for production of the document. Learned Counsel Shri Karia submitted that the Appellants could have taken necessary steps either getting such documentary evidence produced by witness summons or they themselves could have produced, but the application is only for production and not for additional evidence, and therefore, it is now too late to raise any such contention regarding appreciation of evidence. He therefore submitted that the present Second Appeal may not be entertained and may be dismissed along with both the Civil Applications. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Bhargav Karia has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 in case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another and pointedly referred to the observations made in head-note ‘K’ and ‘L’ from paragraphs 36 to 49 to support his contention. 7. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Second Appeal deserve consideration and can be entertained or not. 8. 7. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Second Appeal deserve consideration and can be entertained or not. 8. It is well settled that the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Code after the amendment is very limited and the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines expressing the word of caution in various judicial pronouncements including the observations made in a judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCC 546 in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kaki & Ors. wherein it has been clearly observed; “Now, High Courts can interfere thereunder only where substantial questions of law are involved and have been formulated in the memorandum of appeal – The amendment clearly indicates that the legislature never intended the second appeal to become a third trial on facts.” 9. In the facts of the case, as both the sides have referred to the papers as well as the R&P to support the submissions, it is not in dispute that the Appellants had got ample opportunity to bring on record the necessary evidence which is now sought to be brought on record by additional evidence. Moreover the submissions which have been made referring to the opportunity to the Appellant and non-consideration of the relevant evidence is misconceived. It cannot be said that both the courts below have not considered the evidence. In fact it was for the Appellants to establish and prove by necessary evidence as per the Evidence Act. Admittedly the observations made by the first appellate court clearly suggest that the Appellants could have, at that stage, either got the documents produced or could have summoned the witness particularly when they have given an application for the so-called additional evidence. As rightly submitted, prima facie it appears to be an application for production. It is well established that the production of the documents may be allowed, but, it has to be established in accordance with law of evidence, which has not been done in the present case. A production of document is one thing and bringing it on record or establishing as per the Evidence Act is another thing. In other words, the Appellants having missed the bus though they were aware, have not taken care to produce on record the documents which they claim to be supporting their case. A production of document is one thing and bringing it on record or establishing as per the Evidence Act is another thing. In other words, the Appellants having missed the bus though they were aware, have not taken care to produce on record the documents which they claim to be supporting their case. In any view of the matter, the reasons recorded by both the courts below for the conclusion cannot be said to be perverse which would call for any interference in this Second Appeal. It has been specifically referred in paragraphs E, F, G, H and K of the judgment. Moreover, taking the substantial question of law as posed at the face value, it can hardly be said that it involves any question of law except the appreciation of evidence. The reliance placed by learned Advocate Shri Gandhi on Order 47 Rule 23(A) as well as Rule 25, it is evident that it only refers to the appeal, meaning thereby the first appellate court and not in the Second Appeal. A bare perusal of Rule 23A, 24 and 25 clearly suggest that there may not be bar in deciding the issue on merits raised in the first appeal before remitting the case to the trial court. In other words it provides that the appellate court itself may decide the issue or the controversy involved without referring it back, which is not the issue in the present case. In the present case, the issue which is involved is whether there is any substantial question of law involved or not. Further, as per the issue which has been posed as substantial question of law in the memo of Second Appeal, it would suggest that it is a matter of appreciation of evidence and it is not even the case that the documents which were produced on record have not been considered. The documents which are relevant and are not considered, then perhaps the court may consider for exercise of discretion under Section 100 in the Second Appeal. However, in the present case, it is not the case of the Appellant. The documents which are relevant and are not considered, then perhaps the court may consider for exercise of discretion under Section 100 in the Second Appeal. However, in the present case, it is not the case of the Appellant. It may be noted that though the Appellants were aware and having given an application for production, have not taken necessary steps either at the trial or at the first appellate stage, and therefore, in the Second Appeal, such a prayer for additional evidence cannot be entertained nor it can be said that the reasons recorded by the first appellate court is without consideration of relevant material, and therefore, any interference is justified. 10. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 in case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another (supra) relied upon by learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia, in paragraphs 36 to 49 clearly referred to this aspect, and while discussing the scheme of the provisions of Order 41 in the said judgment, reference is also made to Section 100 of the Code. While referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 in case of State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, it has been quoted:- “13. ...The word ‘substantial’ prefixed to ‘question of law’ does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. ‘Substantial questions of law’ means no only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. ......... any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. ......There cannot, therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case.” What could be said to be a question of law, therefore has been discussed and it has been stated that there may not be lack of jurisdiction or prohibition in entertaining the Second Appeal in a given circumstance. ......There cannot, therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case.” What could be said to be a question of law, therefore has been discussed and it has been stated that there may not be lack of jurisdiction or prohibition in entertaining the Second Appeal in a given circumstance. However, it has to be first established that the findings by the court below are vitiated or perverse. It has been observed quoting from the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002 (3) SCC 634 in case of Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali; “very exceptional cases and on extreme perversity that the authority to examine the same in extenso stands permissible – it is a rarity rather than a regularity and thus in fine it can be safely concluded that while there is no prohibition as such, but the power to scrutiny can only be had in very exceptional circumstances and upon proper circumspection.” 11. A useful reference can also be made to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2016 SC 4477 in case of Nagarpalika Thakurdwara v. Khalil Ahmed and ors. 12. Therefore, while considering the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 as discussed above and also the scope of Section 100 of the Code, the present Second Appeal cannot be entertained and deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. 13. In view of the order passed in the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 3531 of 2016 (for additional evidence) as well as Civil Application No. 3532 of 2016 (for stay of the impugned judgment) stands disposed of. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 14. R&P to be sent back to the concerned court forthwith. Further Order: 15. After the order was pronounced, learned Counsel Shri M.B. Gandhi has requested for stay of the operation of the order and extension of the interim relief which has been granted in Civil Application No. 3532 of 2016 for a period of 8 weeks to enable the Appellant to avail the appropriate remedy. 16. Learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia has some reservation. 17. However, in the interest of justice, the request for stay of the operation of the order as prayed for is granted. 16. Learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia has some reservation. 17. However, in the interest of justice, the request for stay of the operation of the order as prayed for is granted. The interim relief which has been granted in Civil Application No. 3532 of 2016 shall continue for a period of 8 weeks from today.