The Appellate Court's discretion under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to admit additional evidence is limited and should not excuse untimely submissions by parties.

1. Appellant has preferred this Misc. Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Gohad, Distt. Bhind, in Civil Appeal No.17/2006 on 5.10.2006 by which appellate Court while allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC has remanded back the case to the trial Court for taking additional evidence regarding documents submitted by respondent No.1.

2. In brief facts of the case are that initially one Durjan son of Ochhe Kachhi was the owner of land survey Nos.2904/1 area 0.303 hectare, 2906/1 area 0.376 hectare, 2906/3 area 0.261 hectare, 2907/2 area 1.097 hectare, 2907/6 area 0.031 hectare and 3063/2 area 0.031 hectare situated at village Vilao Tahsil Bhind. The plaintiff is the only heir of Durjan. Due to this, she is in possession of the aforesaid land after the death of Durjan. Defendants mischievously mutated their names in the revenue record of aforesaid land as widow and son of Durjan and Batankan was done in which plaintiff and defendants each got 1/3 share of the aforesaid disputed land despite defendants are having no relations with deceased Durjan. When she came to know about aforesaid mutation and partition, she filed a civil suit before the trial Court and adduced evidence in support of her plaint. The trial Court after considering the evidence of both the parties, decreed the suit in her favour and declared that she is the sole owner of the aforesaid dispute land and prohibited the defendants in interfering in her possession. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant Vijayram preferred a first appeal before the Seventh Additional District Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind, under Section 96 of CPC. During pendency of the appeal, defendant- Vijayram filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 and Sections 107 and 151 of CPC submitting that respondent/defendant could not produce some important documents before the trial Court because he could not found aforesaid documents. He got aforesaid documents on 20.8.2006. Earlier photocopy of the aforesaid documents were submitted, but they could not be exhibited. The aforesaid documents are of 1966 and show name of father of defendant as Durjan. Beside this, a ration card of 1979 has also been filed in which name of Durjan has been mentioned as father of respondent No.1-Vijayram. These documents are very important to adjudicate the present controversy. In support of the application, defendant- Vijayram filed his affidavit. The appellant/plaintiff in reply to the said application submitted that she filed the civil suit before the trial Court in 1992. After service of plaint, defendant- Vijayram regularly appeared before the trial Court from 1993 and for about 9-10 years he contested the case and thus he was having ample opportunity to adduce aforesaid documentary evidence in his support, but he did not produce such documents before the trial Court. After about 14 years of filing of civil suit, at appellate stage on 24.8.2006 he filed the aforesaid application only on the ground that originals of the said documents could not be found earlier. The appellate Court allowed the said application and remanded the case back to the trial Court for taking additional evidence regarding documents submitted by respondent No.1.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC reads as under :-
"27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.-(1)The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if-
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit