JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The short issue involved in this Civil Appeal is whether it is necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the parties before adjudicating the prayer made for leading additional evidence under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

2. The appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who are aggrieved by the reversal of the decree for specific performance of agreement dated 20.02.1995, that was granted by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has reversed the said decree after taking into consideration the additional evidence led by the respondent - defendant.

2.1 It is the case of the appellants - plaintiffs that on 20.02.1995, the respondent - defendant entered into an agreement to sell his house property for a consideration of Rs.10,67,000. An amount of Rs.2,50,000 was paid on the date of the agreement, while further amount of Rs.2,50,000 was paid on 30.03.1995. The agreement was to be completed within a period of one and a half years. As per the said agreement, if the defendant was not in a position to deliver vacant possession, the consideration payable was to be Rs.8,67,000.

2.2 The plaintiffs on 18.04.1996 issued a notice to the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed. There was no response to this notice. Thereafter on 11.07.1996, a telegraphic notice was issued by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereafter on 19.07.1996 filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.02.1995.

2.3 In the plaint, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that they had disposed of other immovable properties for purchasing the suit property, which they intended to use for their occupation. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and that the balance consideration was available with them.

2.4 In the written statement filed by the defendant, the case set up by the plaintiffs was denied. According to the defendant, he had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000 for expansion of his business from the plaintiff No.1 and that on 18.02.1995, his signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. While he admitted his signatures at two places on the stamp papers, he denied the other signatures. As regards the plaintiffs’ case that they had sold their immovable properties for purchasing the suit property, the defendant stated that it was not within his knowledge that the plaintiffs had done so.

2.5 The plaintiff No.1 examined himself and two other witnesses. The defendant examined himself before the Trial Court. On consideration of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had proved that an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 was entered into by the defendant. It was further held that the plaintiffs had proved their readiness and willingness. The Trial Court exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiffs and after disbelieving the evidence led by the defendant, decreed the suit for specific performance on 19.02.2000.

2.6 The defendant being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), During pendency of the appeal, an application under provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code was filed by the defendant. He sought to produce additional documentary evidence in support of the appeal. The documents intended to be produced were:-

“1. Certified copy of extract of the house tax demand register pertaini