Additional evidence in appeal is strictly limited; revisional interference with a discretionary refusal requires jurisdictional error.

Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted only within the strict limits of Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC, namely where evidence was wrongly excluded, could not be produced despite due diligence, or is needed to pronounce judgment or for other substantial cause. A revisional court under Section 115 should not substitute its own view for a first appellate court's discretionary refusal unless a jurisdictional error is shown. On the facts, the proposed forensic examination did not satisfy the due diligence test, so interference with the refusal was unwarranted and the appellate order was restored. The preliminary objection based on the appellant's conduct was overruled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the first appellate court's refusal to permit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the preliminary objection based on the appellant's conduct in relation to the hearing before the High Court disentitled the appellant from maintaining the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the first appellate court's refusal to permit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The appellate court's power to admit additional evidence is exceptional and is confined to the conditions specified in Order XLI, Rule 27. Such evidence is not admissible as of right, and the discretion must be exercised judicially and sparingly. The rule applies where evidence was wrongly excluded, where despite due diligence it could not be produced earlier, or where the appellate court requires it to enable it to pronounce judgment or for other substantial cause. On the facts, the proposed forensic examination did not fall within the due diligence category, and the first appellate court had already considered and rejected the application. In revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, the High Court ought not to have substituted its own view on the necessity of additional evidence for that of the first appellate court.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the order refusing additional evidence, and the order of the first appellate court was required to be restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the preliminary objection based on the appellant's conduct in relation to the hearing before the High Court disentitled the appellant from maintaining the appeal.

Analysis: The apprehensions expressed by the appellant in the representation were not pursued before the same learned Judge or before the Chief Justice of the High Court, and mere reiteration of those circumstances in the special leave petition did not, by itself, bar the appeal.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was overruled.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the first appellate court's refusal to allow additional evidence was restored, leaving the parties free to agitate the matter in the pending appeal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal can be admitted only within the strict confines of Order XLI, Rule 27, and a revisional court should not interfere with a discretionary refusal of such evidence unless jurisdictional error is shown.

---