Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in order to bring the following additional evidence on record :

“The appellant application No. 22C/1 to 22 C/3 under order 41 rule 27 C.P.C. Purported to file additional evidence annexing with the documents was rejected by the learned VII Additional District Judge vide order dated 2.2.2009 in first appeal No. 110 of 1994 on the ground that the document seeking to produce in additional evidence are the photo copies.

The present supplementary affidavit and its annexure is being filed by deponent to avoid the delay. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to the allow the same in exercise the inherent power of the Court in the interest of justice.”

3. On the said application, an order has been passed on 26.9.2013. The relevant portion of the same is quoted herein below :

“The question whether the appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application of appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC shall be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. The application is rejected.”

4. While pressing the application in question, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the original appellant/Smt. Ganga Devi (now deceased) who was illiterate lady and ignorant of the complicated questions of law and fact, therefore, same documents/admissions of the respondents could not be filed on record. When it came to her knowledge that Rsmesh Chand has filed Writ Petition No. 1087 of 1987 (Ramesh Chandra v. Additional District Magistrate, Agra and others) before this Court, the appellant sent letter to the clerk of his counsel Shri R. N. Bhalla, Advocate to obtain the copy of aforesaid writ petition.

5. Thereafter, the photo-stat copy of the said writ petition was obtained and from perusal of paragraph No. 2 of the said writ petition, it came to knowledge that Ramesh Chandra himself has admitted that he and Smt. Ganga Devi (now deceased) were owner and londlord of the house in dispute in an application filed under Section 16 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 against Munna Lal for release of the House No. 24/106, Kazi Para, Agra. So, keeping in view the said facts, the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) C.P.C. Supported by an affidavit (registered as paper Nos.22-C and 23-C) before the appellate Court.

6. By means of order dated 2.2.2009, the same has been rejected on the ground that the document sought to be brought on record, is a photo-stat copy, not admissible under evidence. Further the appellate Court while rejecting the said application has also given a finding that matter is to be decided expeditiously as per the order passed by this Court dated 18.4.1988 expeditiously.

7. During the pendency of the present appeal, on behalf of the appellant, an application (C.M.A.No. 102352 of 2009) has been moved under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) C.P.C. to bring the document on record in respect to which an order dated 2.2.2009 has been passed by the appellate Court on an application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on 25.7.2014 the following order has been passed :

(C.M. Application No. 102352 of 2009)

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

In the present case , present application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been moved by defendant/ appellant in which this Court on 29.9.2013 has passed the following orders :

“Heard learned counsel for the parties on civil misc. application No. 102352 of 2009 under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant moved this application to bring certain documents on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

The main contention of the appellant is that he also filed the same documen