JUDGMENT : By way of present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2005, arising out of judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anni, District Kullu in Civil Suit No.14-1 of 2004. 2. Appellant herein was plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondents herein were defendants. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status, which they held before the learned Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit in respect of 2 biswas of land and house constructed thereon comprised in part of Khasra No. 409/283 in mauja /Phati Thachwa in village Jagatkhana, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. (for short “suit property”). Plaintiff claimed the suit property as owner thereof by virtue of agreement to sell and alternatively under a gift executed by one Sh. Parmi, who was the original owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. 409/283. She alleged that defendants No. 1 to 3 were strangers to the suit property and defendants No. 4 to 6 were her tenants. As per plaintiff, defendants were sons of Sh. Rattan Dass, who had lived as husband of plaintiff for considerable long period. It was contended by plaintiff that after the death of Sh.Rattan Dass, defendants No. 1 to 3 illegally started claiming their rights over the suit property on the pretext that it belonged to their father. The peaceful possession of plaintiff was alleged to be disturbed by defendants No.1 to 3. It was also alleged that defendants No. 1 to 3 obstructed defendants No. 4 to 6 from paying rent to the plaintiff on the above noted averments relief in the following terms was prayed for:- “It is, therefore, prayed that defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their family members, agents, persons, servants or whosoever acts for and on their behalf may kindly be restrained from causing any sort of interference directly or indirectly into the possession of the plaintiff and her tenants in the double storey house comprising two rooms and kitchen on the ground floor and two rooms with separate kitchen, latrine and bathroom on the Ist floor of the house along with vacant space in front and right side of the house and they be also restrained from collecting rent from defendants Nos. 4 to 6 and further defendant Nos. 4 to 6 may kindly be restrained to make any kind of payment of rent to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and further defendant Nos. 1 to 6 may kindly be restrained from causing any sort of nuisance, acts and deeds in peaceful enjoyment of the property situated over Khasra No. 409/283 in mouza Tachwa by the plaintiff. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice.” 4. Suit was contested by all the defendants. Defendants No. 1 to 3 denied the claim of plaintiff on the ground that their father late Sh.Rattan Dass had purchased the land measuring two biswas in Khasra No. 409/283 from Sh. Ratti Ram, who was son of Sh. Parmi. According to defendants No.1 to 3, the house was constructed by their father and plaintiff was one of his tenants. They specifically denied any relationship between their father and plaintiff. 5. Defendants No. 4 to 6 acknowledged that suit property belonged to Sh. Rattan Dass and they were inducted tenants by him. Defendants No. 4 to 6 maintained that they had been paying rent earlier to Sh. Rattan Dass and after his death to defendants No. 1 to 3. 6. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed followings issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit against the defendants? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 7. Relief. 7. Parties to the suit availed opportunities to lead evidence. Oral as well as documentary evidence was produced on record by both the parties. The learned Trial Court answered issues No.1 and 5 in negative, issues No.2 to 4 in affirmative and issue No.6 as not pressed. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed by learned Trial Court. 8. Oral as well as documentary evidence was produced on record by both the parties. The learned Trial Court answered issues No.1 and 5 in negative, issues No.2 to 4 in affirmative and issue No.6 as not pressed. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed by learned Trial Court. 8. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005, passed by learned Trial Court, plaintiff filed appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2005. Learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr dismissed the above noted appeal vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.2007 and thereby affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. 9. The plaintiff has approached this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against above noted judgment and decree dated 05.11.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in Civil Appeal No. 48/2005. 10. On 29.12.2007, the instant appeal was admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. having been filed by appellant has not been considered and decided by the learned District Judge, therefore, the jurisdiction has not been exercised properly and findings are liable to be set-aside. 2. Whether the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC as filed by the appellant for recall of PW-7 has wrongly been rejected and thus the jurisdiction has not been exercised in accordance with law. 3. Whether the appellant having received the amount of compensation due to damage to her house in the suit by the Tehsildar, Nirmand in support of which certificates Ex.PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B have been brought on record, but effect thereof on the claim of the appellant has not been considered by both the courts below and similarly the factum of electricity connections in the name of appellant as per Ex.PW-7/A, Mark A and Mark B, the suit was required to be decreed. 4. Whether the agreement for sale Ex. PW-3/A and writing of gift Ex. PW-3/B having been proved on record, therefore, the same could not be excluded from consideration and in any case for decree of injunction, these documents could be considered. 11. 4. Whether the agreement for sale Ex. PW-3/A and writing of gift Ex. PW-3/B having been proved on record, therefore, the same could not be excluded from consideration and in any case for decree of injunction, these documents could be considered. 11. Learned counsel for appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the first instance, addressed arguments on substantial question No.1. He drew the attention of the Court towards the relevant portion of the record of learned District Judge Kinnuar at Rampur in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2005. 12. Perusal of “zimni” order dated 31.05.2007 revealed that the plaintiff on the said date had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence. On 20.06.2007, reply on behalf of the respondents was filed to the said application and the main appeal was ordered to be listed for arguments along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the appeal came to be adjourned on various occasions due to one or other reason. Finally, the appeal came to be decided on 05.11.2007. The record further reveals that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by plaintiff before lower Appellate Court remained pending throughout and was not decided either separately or along with the appeal. 13. There is no absolute right granted by Code of Civil Procedure to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. Nonetheless, the Court hearing appeal has power to allow a party to adduce additional evidence subject, however, to the interdict provided in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The allowance of the prayer to adduce additional evidence, in the given circumstances of the case, may have the effect of changing the outcome of the case. 14. Undisputedly, plaintiff had right to invite a decision, on her prayer to adduce additional evidence, from Lower Appellate Court. The absence of adjudication on application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure amounts to refusal of exercise of jurisdiction vested in Lower Appellate Court, which has potential to cause prejudice to the plaintiff. 15. In Jatinder Singh & Another vs. Mehar Singh & others, AIR 2009 SC 354 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- “4. 15. In Jatinder Singh & Another vs. Mehar Singh & others, AIR 2009 SC 354 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- “4. While deciding the second appeal, however, the High Court had failed to take notice of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide whether additional evidence could be permitted to be admitted into evidence. In our view, when an application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. That being the admitted position, we have no other alternative but to set aside the judgment of High Court and remit the appeal back to it for a decision afresh in the second appeal along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence in accordance with law.” 16. In the light of above discussion, impugned judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur, dated 05.11.2007, in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2005 in case titled Smt. Mani Devi vs. Sh. Suresh Chand & Others is set aside. The appeal, thus is allowed to the extent indicated above and the matter is remanded to learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. for decision afresh in the appeal alongwith application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of plaintiff. 17. No order as to costs.