Sandeep Sharma, J.

Having regard to the nature of order, this Court proposes to pass, it may not be necessary to take note of the facts of the case, save and except that the plaintiff-appellant, who had lost in both the learned courts below, had preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 during the pendency of appeal before learned first Appellate Court, wherein he sought to produce certain documents. Careful perusal of record, as perused by this Court, suggests that the aforesaid application having been preferred by the plaintiff appellant was entertained and time was granted to the opposite party to file reply. Similarly, perusal of order sheet suggests that matter was repeatedly adjourned on the request of respective parties to enable them to complete pleadings in the proceedings arising out of application under Order 41 Rule 27. However, as a matter of fact, matter was ordered to be heard finally on 15.5.2009 and thereafter, vide judgment dated 22.5.2009, appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed without taking note of application under Order 41 Rule 27.

2. Close scrutiny of record made available to this Court clearly suggests that while deciding