Additional Evidence in Appeal: revisional interference with appellate discretion was held premature and unsustainable.

Additional evidence in appeal is not a matter of right and may be admitted only where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or where some other substantial cause exists under Section 107(1)(d) read with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The rule cannot be used to patch up weaknesses in a party's case or fill evidentiary lacunae. Revisional interference with an interlocutory appellate order on such an application is unwarranted when the appeal is still pending and the appellate court can decide the request afresh. The High Court's interference was held unsustainable, and the matter was remitted to the first appellate court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could, in revision, interfere with the first appellate court's order allowing an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of right and can be permitted only in the circumstances recognised by Section 107(1)(d) read with Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rule is not intended to enable a party to patch up weaknesses in its case or to fill lacunae in the evidence. The controlling test is whether the appellate court requires the evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or whether some other substantial cause exists. Revisional interference with an interlocutory order of the appellate court on this question is unwarranted when the appeal itself remains pending and the appellate court is competent to decide the application afresh.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable, and the matter concerning additional evidence was remitted to the first appellate court for fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted only when the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or when other substantial cause exists, and revisional courts should not interfere prematurely with such an interlocutory exercise of appellate discretion.

---