1. The appellant in the Second Appeal is the first defendant in the suit, which is a temple represented by its Executive Officer. When the appeal was part-heard, the appellant filed C.M.P. No. 8049 of 1996 for receiving the documents filed therewith as additional evidence in the appeal. It is a petition under O. 41, R. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that Rule, the Court may allow additional evidence, if (i) the court, from whose decree the appeal is preferred, has refused to admit evidence, which ought to have been admitted, or (ii) the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not after the exercise of due diligence be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (iii) the appellate court requires any evidence to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The present case cannot fall under (i). In the affidavit filed by the present Executive Officer in support of the petition, it is averred that after assuming charge of the temple, he searched t