JUDGMENT
Farooq Hasan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. This revision petition has arisen out of the following circumstances. In a suit for perpetual injunction the application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial court on 24-7-1987 against which an appeal (Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61/87) was filed in the court of the District Jaipur, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs moved an application Under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC which was allowed by the lower court and it allowed the plaintiffs to produce additional documents vide impugned order dated 18-2-88. Hence this revision petition by the petitioner.
3. It has not been disputed that in the original suit, the written statement has not so far been filed. At the initial stage of the case, the non-petitioners are entitled to file any document if they so liked.
4. As stated earlier, the learned trial court dismissed the application Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC. Against the dismissal order, the non-petitioners filed an appeal and in that appeal, a registered document was filed along with the application Under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. After hearing the parties on the said application, the lower court allowed it on the ground that the document was material and relevant for the proper disposal of the case and for deciding the real controversy.
5. The only point raised before this court as well as before the lower court is, whether the lower court has jurisdiction to allow additional evidence which the plaintiff failed to produce in the trial court though the same was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. And, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the learned District Judge erred in exercising his jurisdiction while allowing the application Under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC.
6. As per the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 27, CPC the court hearing the matter in appeal has ample jurisdiction to allow additional evidence, oral or documentary, but is should be relevant and material for the purposes of deciding the real controversy.
7. Having gone through the impugned order of the District Judge, I am of the opinion that in view of the findings arrived at by the lower court to the effect that the crucial document is material and relevant for proper disposal of the matter and for proper decision of the real controversy involved in the matter, the learned District Judge has not committed any error apparent on the face of record, in allowing the application, more over I find no jurisdictional error warranting interference in the impugned order, under revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 CPC.
8. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed summarily.