The appellate court should not ordinarily admit additional evidence before the appeal is heard, but it may do so if the appellant satisfies the court that after the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced when the appeal was decided against him.

1. - This is a revision petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC filed against the order dated 16.10.1997 passed by Shri K.K. Acharya, District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Appeal No. 46/93 whereby the application moved by the defendants - petitioners under Order 41, R. 27 and Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

2. The non - petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in respect of the disputed shop against the defendants-petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of sub-letting and bona fide necessity. The plaintiff alleged that the disputed shop was first let out on 1.2.1972 to defendant Bhikharam and possession was handed over on the same day. A rent note Ex. 1 dated 1.2.1972 was executed by Bhikharam in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant, in its reply, denied the aforesaid averments and it was averred that as a matter of fact that shop was let out by the plaintiff to both the defendants in the month of November, 1971. Since then they have been occupying the shop as tenants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The issues framed were as under :

(i) whether rent note dated 1.2.1972 has been executed by defendant No. 1?

(ii) Whether the disputed premises was taken on rent by the defendants No. 1 & 2 jointly since November, 1971 and not that defendant No. 1 had executed the rent note?

(ii) Whether after the partition between the defendant Nos. 1 & 2, the defendant No. 2 has become sole tenant of the disputed premises?

3. In order to discharge burden of proof regarding issue No. 2, the defendants examined themselves and they also summoned Mahendra Kumar Sharma Inspector, Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi as witnesses. The defendants were carrying on business in the shop in the name and style "M/s. Ambeshwarji Kashida Bhandar". The said commercial establishment was duly registered with the Inspector, Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi on 18.11.1971. The registration No. was 751/71. The defendants produced the third copy of the registration before the learned trial Court. However, by mistake in registration certificate, the registration No. recorded was 751/93 instead of 751/71. It was subsequently rectified. The petitioners have stated that their witness Mahendra Kumar Sharma appeared before the Court with the registration register on 19.5.1993. While he was being examined by the counsel for the defendants and the registration register was being exhibited, learned counsel for the plaintiff objected and the learned trial Court sustained the objection and entries in the register could not be exhibited. The trial Court, on account of over-writing/correction in Ex. A-2, held the same as not proved and the stand taken by the defendants that they were occupying the disputed shop as tenant since November, 1971 was not accepted. Eventually, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court on 21.7.1993. Against the above judgment and decree, the petitioners-defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirohi which is pending decision. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners have preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the appellate Court praying for taking the documents on record and for calling the Inspector along with the original documents for adducing additional evidence :

(i) The receipt dated 18.11.1971 whereby the registration fee was deposited for the registration of the commercial establishment Ambershwar Kashida Bhandar.

(ii) The Vth copy of the registration certificate dated 25.1.1991 issued by Inspector, Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishment, Sirohi wherein the renewal for the year 1991 upto 1994 has been recorded.

(iii) The application dated 17.8.1993 moved by the defendant Tulsi Ram along with the order dated 17.8.1993 passed by the Inspector on the said application.

(iv) The certificate dated 17.8.1993 issued by the Inspector.

4. The non-petitioner-plaintiff did not file any re