S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 7.9.1994, vide which he allowed the production of additional evidence. When this appeal came up before the learned Single Judge on 20.4.1995, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no appeal was maintainable against an order permitting additional evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant conceded to this contention praying the appeal to be treated as revision petition. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that no revision petition would be maintainable in view of proviso (a) to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Again the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 2.5.1995. After hearing the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge admitted the case to a Division Bench.

2. The facts are that the suit filed by the appellant was decreed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge and the appeal was filed by some of the respondents against it. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants in the appeal moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of the