JUDGEMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted.

2. This Civil appeal has been preferred by the Jaipur Development Authority against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B.Civil First Appeal No. 19 of 1995 dated 10.12.1996. By that judgment, the High Court rejected an application filed by the appellant for leading "additional evidence" under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, in a pending first appeal on the ground that the appellant had not led any evidence in the trial Court. The Court took the above view following a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Md. Saifur Rahman v. State of Assam and Others1 to the effect that the word additional in Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. meant the "joining or uniting one thing to another so as to form one aggregate" and that a party was disentitled to produce any additional evidence if he had not produced any evidence in the trial Court.

3. The facts are as follows:-

The suit was filed by the respondent questioning certain land acquisition proceedings and seeking permanent injunction or the basis that the plaintiff was in possession. The appellant got impleaded in the trial Court as a defendant. The suit was decreed ex-parte