Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the order dated 11.12.2000 by which the learned First Appellate Court allowed the application of the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and remanded the matter back to the trial court.

(2). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that none of the condition of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been satisfied, more particularly, when the facts reveal that the party seeking permission to produce additional evidence was negligent inasmuch as the documents were within the knowledge of the respondent party. The copies of the documents were placed on record before the trial court but they did not choose to prove those documents and when trial court has drawn an adverse inference against the respondent then the order of the Appellate Court permitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is clearly beyond the scope of order 41 Rule 27 CPC. I perused the impugned order and order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Learned Appellate Court observed that "esjs er esa ;s izys[k oLrqr% U;k; fj;y tfLVl ds fy, vR;ko;d gSA and also observed that ^^oLrqr% U;k;kFkZ ,sls izys[k vko;d gS rks U;k; fgr esa oLrqr% U;k; ds fu"iknukFkZ ,sls izys[kk

Click Here to Read the rest of this document