Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. –

Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh for the respondents.

2. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, counsel for the respondents does not propose to file any counter affidavit. With the consent of the parties the petition is being decided on merit at this stage.

3. This petition has been filed for setting aside the a part of the order of District Judge dated 8.4.2016 by which application under Order41, Rule 27 CPC has been rejected.

4. A short argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that appeal was listed for consideration of stay application. On that date the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has also been taken into consideration. The court below found that the circumstances, as mentioned in the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has not been satisfied.

5. The counsel for the petitioner specifically relies upon Order 41, Rule 27 (1) (b) CPC and submits that Order 41, Rule 27 CPC assigned discretion to the Appellate Court to require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment. Or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evide