JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein is the appellant in C.M.A. No.12/2023, arising from I.A.No.4/2023 in O.S. No.285/2023, pending before the Sub Court, Karunagappally. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, which dismissed an application for issuance of a Commission in the C.M.Appeal, on the premise that such an exercise will amount to production of additional evidence governed by Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the requirements of which are not satisfied. 2. Another finding entered into by the learned Sub Judge is that the Commissioner's report, Ext.C1, which was taken for the purpose of the I.A. before the trial court is not impeached by the present petitioner, who was the appellant in the C.M.A. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 4. The respondent has no objection in allowing the instant Original Petition, provided that the points sought to be noted by the respondents are also directed to be looked into. 5. This Court is afraid whether the finding of the First Appellate Court, as regards, applicability of Order XLI, Rule 27 is legally correct. Order XLI deals with 'appeals from original decrees'. In Rule 27 also, this Court notice that the term employed in sub clause (a) is the court from whose decree, the appeal is preferred. The term 'decree' is also employed in sub clause (aa) of Order XLI, Rule 27(1). In sub clause (b) of Order XLI, Rule 27(1), the term employed is, to enable it to pronounce judgment. 6. That being the position, essentially Order XLI, Rule 27 applies to an appeal from an original decree and not an appeal from an order, which is governed by Order XLIII. Ext.P7 is therefore set aside. Ext.P5 application will stand allowed. The learned Sub Judge will proceed with the matter, once the Commission report is made available, in accordance with law. Additional points on behalf of the respondents shall also be noted by the Commissioner. 7. This Original Petition is disposed of, as above.