https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189020 The appellate court had jurisdiction to consider whether additional evidence should be admitted under Order XLI Rule 27(b) CPC, and any challenge to the correctness of that decision on merits had to await the proper stage. The High Court erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC against an interim order while the appeal remained pending, because the order was not without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that such interference was unjustified, restored the appellate court's order, and directed that the appeal be decided on its own merits. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Dec 2016 10:49:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189020 The appellate court had jurisdiction to consider whether additional evidence should be admitted under Order XLI Rule 27(b) CPC, and any challenge to the correctness of that decision on merits had to await the proper stage. The High Court erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC against an interim order while the appeal remained pending, because the order was not without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that such interference was unjustified, restored the appellate court's order, and directed that the appeal be decided on its own merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189020