https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189018 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. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Dec 2016 10:27:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189018 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189018