So far as the question of rejection of the two applications by the learned Court below is concerned, it may be mentioned that one of the application was under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The learned appellate Court in the impugned judgment had mentioned in para 12 about these two applications. As far as the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is concerned, it has been observed that it was not necessary, because there was sufficient evidence on record and it has been established unequivocally that the appellant-defendant had installed a Press in the disputed accommodation. As such, the issue of commission will not be of any help for the decision of the case. I do not find that the learned appellate Court was wrong in its approach while rejecting this application. I, therefore, find that the application was rightly rejected.

As regards the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for permission to file a copy of sale-deed is concerned, it may be mentioned that it should have been allowed by the learned appellate Court because it contains certain averments which were necessary for the proper decision of the case, as is evident from the observations of the first appellate Court it