( 1 ) IN MADAMANCHI RAMAPPA AND ANOTHER V. MUTHALURU BOJJAPPA A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1633. Mr. Chhatrapati has filed on behalf of the plaintiffs an affidavit to which are annexed copies of certain documents. He prays far taking additional evidence on record. According to him that evidence shows that what the defendants have stated in their evidence is false. The question which has arisen is whether it is open to this Court in a Second Appeal to take additional evidence. On the question whether additional evidence can be taken or not in a second Appeal there are two schools of thought. In P. V. SUBBA RAJA V. S. S. NARAYANA RAJA AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1954 MADRAS 1074 Mr. Justice Krishnaswami Nayudu after having reviewed a number of decisions has held that the circumstances under which a second appellate Court may determine an issue of fact are limited to the conditions arising under sec. 103 which makes the position clear that so far as evidence is concerned on which an issue of fact may be determined the evidence on record must be sufficient to enable the High Court to decide the question of fact. According to him it necessarily implies that it as ordinarily not competent to the High Court in a Second Appeal to consider any other evidence excepting the evidence on record. Therefore the second appellate Court cannot admit evidence and give its own decision on a question of fact. The provisions of sec. 103 are sufficiently clear to exclude the operation of Order 47 Rule 27 and their applicability to appeals filed under Order 42 Civil Procedure Code. Every provision in Order 41 that does not automatically apply to a proceeding in second appeal by virtue of Order 42 Rule I but only such provisions as may reasonably be applied having in view the provisions of secs. 100 and 103 and the limited scope of the jurisdiction of the second appellate Court in matters affecting questions of fact. According to him therefore the proper view to be taken is that it is not competent to admit additional evidence in a second appeal. The second school of thought is represented by the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in VENKU REDDI V. PICHI REDDI AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1956 ANDHRA 250. Mr. Justice Chandra Reddy has taken the view therein that there is nothing either in sec. 103 or in Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code which excludes the applicability of the latter provision to second appeals. The terms of Rule 27 are general in application and in an appropriate case it is open to the High Court in a second appeal to admit additional evidence. In RAMCHANDRA PANDURANG SATHE V. KRISHNAJI VITHAL JOSHI (1904) INDIAN LAW REPORTS 28 BOMBAY 4 it has been held by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay that if on coming to the High Court under second appeal it is discovered that there is evidence which ought to have been placed before the lower Courts the proper practiced to pursue is to allow the second appeal to be withdrawn in order that a review petition may be presented to the lower Appellate Court. This decision refers with approval to the earlier decision of the High Court of Bombay in NANABHAI VALLABHDAS HARIBHAI V. NATHABHAI (1872) 9 BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTS 89. IN SUMANLAL BHAGWANDAS KAPADIA V. NAGINLAL BHAGWANDAS KAPADIA 8 G. L. R. 386 it has been held by this Court that there is no justification for the High Court to allow additional evidence in a second appeal for the purpose of filling in the lacuna in the evidence since the High Court in a Second Appeal is required only to examine whether the impugned decree is in accordance with law or not. No additional evidence can be taken which would involve retrial and re-appreciation of evidence. If the case falls under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code then different considerations may arise. In AMBABEN WD/o. ANANDJI PARASHOTTAMDAS GANATRA AND OTHERS V. THAKKAR GORDHANDAS DHARAMSHI AND OTHERS (1971) I. L. R. 12 GUJARAT 1165 it has been held by this Court that it is not ope