JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No. 6/2014, a suit for specific performance instituted by the respondent in the court of Sr. Civil Judge, Gangavati. The respondent died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 2. 10 acres 20 guntas of land in sy. No. 72/B of Nandihalli village, Gangavati taluk, Koppal district is the subject matter of the suit (suit property). The plaintiff stated that the defendant entered into contract with him for selling the suit property to for a consideration of Rs.18.00 lakhs. The defendant received earnest money of Rs.17, 92, 000.00 from him and executed an agreement of sale on 4/12/2013 agreeing to complete the sale transaction on or before 4/3/2014 by receiving balance consideration of Rs.8, 000.00. Within the stipulated time, the defendant was required to discharge the loan obtained by her from State Bank of Hyderabad. Noticing that the defendant was not inclined to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a notice to her on 22/1/2014 demanding of her the execution of sale deed. As the demand did not yield any result, he instituted the suit. 3. The defendant denied to have executed the agreement and receipt of Rs.17, 92, 000.00 towards earnest money. She denied her signature on the agreement and stated that she replied to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. 4. Assessing the oral evidence of four witnesses from the plaintiff's side and one witness of the defendant, so also the documentary evidence as per Exs.P.1 to P.7, and Exs.D.1 to D.34, the trial court recorded findings that the plaintiff was able to prove execution of agreement by the defendant, receipt of earnest money of Rs.17, 92, 000.00 by her and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. These findings led to decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in terms of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. Hence this appeal by the defendant. 5. The legal representatives of defendant have got filed an application, I.A. No. 1/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and produced six documents to be received as additional evidence in support of their case. 6. We heard arguments of Sri S.H. Mithalkod, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and Sri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on merits of the appeal as also the application, I.A. No. 1/2023. 7. 6. We heard arguments of Sri S.H. Mithalkod, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and Sri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on merits of the appeal as also the application, I.A. No. 1/2023. 7. As we are inclined to allow the application, we need not discuss merits of the appeal, it is enough if we record reasons for our decision to allow the application. 8. The documents produced by the defendant are - (i) a letter of confirmation dtd. 7/12/2015 issued by Karnataka Industrial Development Corporation to the effect that compensation of Rs.2, 61, 25, 000.00 was paid in connection with acquisition of certain extent of lands in sy. Nos. 31/A, 32, 44/D, 93 and 94 of Veniveerapura village, (ii) a confirmation letter dtd. 16/1/2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari stating that compensation of Rs.59, 55, 000.00 was disbursed by issuing cheques in relation to acquisition of land in Sy. No. 86B of Veniveerapura, (iii) a voucher for payment of compensation, (iv) a cheque for Rs.2, 61, 25, 000.00 dtd. 18/7/2012 drawn in the name of Smt.Mandagowdru Saraswathamma, (v) another cheque dtd. 28/2/2011 for Rs.59, 55, 000.00 and (vi) bank statement of defendant's account issued by State Bank of India. Documents 1 to 5 are all photostat copies, document no.6 appears to be computer generated copy with seal of the bank. 9. In the affidavit subjoined with the application it is stated by M. Ramanagouda, the son and legal representative 1(b) of the respondent-plaintiff that while searching in the home, he and other legal representatives were able to trace the documents kept in a trunk belonging to his father. They found that these documents were important and relevant for appreciating the controversy involved in the suit. His father could not produce the documents when he adduced evidence in the suit. It was not within his knowledge that the documents were available and therefore these documents are to be received as additional evidence to decide the appeal effectively. 10. Sri S.H. Mitthalkod, learned counsel for the appellant has not filed any statement of objections to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, he did not seriously oppose the application while arguing on merits; all that he submitted was that even if the application was allowed, it would serve no purpose. 10. Sri S.H. Mitthalkod, learned counsel for the appellant has not filed any statement of objections to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, he did not seriously oppose the application while arguing on merits; all that he submitted was that even if the application was allowed, it would serve no purpose. Sri R.H. Angadi, placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkand (2022) 7 SCC 247 submitted that the documents would throw light on the plaintiff's financial capacity to enter into agreement and thus they enable the court to pronounce judgment. 11. We need not much dwell on the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with reference to the cited judgment for, the appellate court has ample power to receive documents by way of additional evidence under three circumstances, one of which is that in the opinion of the court, a document is required for pronouncement of judgment or for a substantial cause. In this case the applicant, i.e., one of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff has stated that the existence of the documents was not within his knowledge and they are required now for a substantial cause in the sense that they help establish his father's financial capacity to enter into an agreement for the purpose of buying the suit land. If for this reason, the documents are produced, they may be received and it is for the applicant to establish that with the help of these documents, they can establish the existence of preponderance of probability in their case. The interest of the defendant will not be affected in any way as she gets an opportunity to question the applicant on these documents. Therefore I.A. No. 1/2023 is allowed. 12. Once production of additional evidence is permitted, the next procedure to be followed is found in Rules 28 and 29 of Order 41 of CPC, there is no scope for remand if additional evidence is permitted to be produced. However if the case falls under the scope of Order 41 Rules 23 or 23-A of CPC even after granting the application under Order 41 Rule 27, the case can be remanded. Here is a case for remand for the following reasons. 13. However if the case falls under the scope of Order 41 Rules 23 or 23-A of CPC even after granting the application under Order 41 Rule 27, the case can be remanded. Here is a case for remand for the following reasons. 13. Firstly, during pendency of the suit, I.A. No. 7 under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC was filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of finger print expert. As the thumb impression found on the agreement was disputed by defendant, opinion of expert was sought. When this appeal came before the co-ordinate bench on 18/11/2022, it was observed that the trial court deferred the consideration of I.A. No. 7 till the defendant's evidence was over and since the trial court did not consider the said application after the defendant's evidence, it was necessary that opinion of the expert could be obtained at the appellate stage. Accordingly the thumb impression of the defendant was obtained and it was sent to the expert for comparing it with the disputed signatures on the agreement. Now the expert has given an opinion. 14. As the trial court failed to appoint an expert when the matter was pending before it and now that the opinion is available, it is necessary that the trial court has to consider the opinion and arrive at proper conclusions based on the report. Before that, the parties are to be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence if necessary and the expert may also be examined so that proper conclusions can be drawn. 15. Secondly the defendant did not enter the witness box, rather she chose to examine her power of attorney as DW1. In the facts and circumstances it is necessary that she herself should tender evidence. It was a point of argument of Sri R.H.Angadi that the defendant remained away from the witness box intentionally shirking to face the cross examination and therefore adverse inference was necessary to be drawn against her. That apart, as the legal representatives of the plaintiff are permitted to produce additional evidence, necessarily they have to adduce oral evidence on the documents that they have produced along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. As the trial court has to record evidence for this purpose, an opportunity may be given to defendant to adduce evidence. If she fails, necessary inferences may be drawn. 16. As the trial court has to record evidence for this purpose, an opportunity may be given to defendant to adduce evidence. If she fails, necessary inferences may be drawn. 16. Therefore the above two reasons being sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Order 41 Rule 23-A CPC, we set aside the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for disposal afresh on merits. Now the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed. Judgment dtd. 1/8/2017 of the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the following purposes. (i) The legal representatives of the plaintiff are permitted to adduce further evidence on the documents produced along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. They are permitted to produce originals of document nos.1 and 2 before the trial court. In regard to marking of documents 3 to 5, the trial court may take a proper decision after hearing the parties. (ii) The trial court shall permit further evidence to be recorded on the expert's opinion by summoning the expert. (iii) The trial court shall direct the defendant to appear and adduce evidence as DW2. (iv) The trial court shall re-appreciate the entire evidence and decide the suit afresh within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 2/11/2023 without fail. There is no order as to costs.