ORDER
A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. Appellant/defendant No. 1 has filed this miscellaneous appeal against the order dated 22-11-2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2004 by learned Additional District Judge, Dhar wherein the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2003 in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2003 was set aside and the case was remanded back for taking the documents on record and recording the evidence of the parties.
2. The respondent No. 1 has filed the Civil Suit No. 39-A/2003 against the appellant defendant No. 1 for declaration of his title and also for the permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the grand father of the plaintiff was the Diwan of State of Dhar and the suit land bearing Survey No. 62 was the mafia land. That the suit land was given on rent on 31-12-1989 to Abbas Ali Bohra and plaintiff used to realize the rent from the tenant. That defendant has got his name mutated in the revenue record on the suit land bearing Survey No. 62.
4. The case of the defendant is that in the partition of the ancestral land the suit land was received by his other heirs and it was produced by defendant No. 1 from one of the heirs vide registered sale deed. That the plaintiff is not the owner of the land and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned Trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence has dismissed the suit. In the appeal, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC to take the documents on record in order to show that the old number of the suit land was Survey No. 18 which has changed into Survey No. 62. The plaintiff has filed the affidavit to explain that why the documents were not filed by her in the Trial Court. It is not in dispute that both the documents are public documents and they are related to the disputed land. The delay is properly explained. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even if the documents are taken on record, it will not change the finding against the plaintiff. However, there is one more defect in the trial of the civil suit wherein the statement of Praveen Kumar Jain (P.W. 4) was not read by the Trial Court on the ground that he has refused to exhibit the sale deed. The total rejection of the statement of Praveen Kumar Jain (P.W. 4) was improper and it was necessary to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the statement of Praveen Kumar Jain (P.W. 4). It is settled law that additional evidence shall not be allowed in Appellate Court unless one of these conditions is satisfied, (a) improper refusal of evidence by Trial Court which ought to have been admitted, or (b) non-production of evidence notwithstanding exercise of due diligence, or (c) requirement of the Appellate Court itself for pronouncing judgment, i.e., impossibility to pronounce judgment without the additional evidence, or (d) any other substantial cause.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC and directing the Trial Court to provide an opportunity to lead the evidence to the parties and also permitting the plaintiff to complete the cross-examination of Praveen Kumar Jain (P.W. 4).
7. The appeal is dismissed in limine.