CRP 444/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. RJ Bor doloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed again st the order dated 04.08.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MC No.67 of 2010, arisen out of Title Appeal No.105 of 2009. The petitioner as appellant filed an appeal, being Title Appeal No.105 of 2009, against the judgment and decree, dated 21.10.2009 and 31.10.2009 respectively, p assed by learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup, in Title Suit No.397 of 2007. The appeal aforementioned is pending for disposal in the Court of learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati. The suit aforementioned filed by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of the d efendant-petitioner on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement, was dec reed by the learned trial Court. In the appeal before learned Civil Judge No.3, the defendant/petitioner filed Misc. petition praying for adducing additional ev idence in T.A. No.105 of 2009. The learned Appellate Court, by the impugned orde r dated 04.08.2010, passed in MC No.67 of 2010, allowed the prayer made in the t itle suit and the plaintiff-respondent was directed to adduce additional evidenc e under order 41 Rule 27 CPC by tendering the documents annexed to the petition thereof. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows: &.The defendat/appellant by submitting the present petition has prayed for allo wing her to adduce evidence on those facts which were not stated earlier in the written statement as admitted in the petition itself. There is no provision for initiation of an enquiry by the appellate court to ascertain the facts, as state d in the petition. The defendant did not state those facts in her written statem ent or in her evidence. She also could bring those facts, by way of cross examin ation of witnesses of the plaintiff side. But the defendant/appellant did not ma ke any effort to bring those facts before the Trial Court. The appellant could n ot start trial afresh for ascertaining whether there is any bonafide requirement . The defendant/appellant also did not try to bring NJ cases before the Court. H owever, Mr. Rupjyoti Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has got no objection if the documents annexed to the petition are made part of the record of this appeal. I, therefore, find that for the ends of justice an d fair trial, copies of documents submitted along with the petition may be made part of record of this appeal and defendant/respondent may adduce evidence to te nder those documents as additional evidence Under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. In result, the prayer of the appellant/defendant is allowed part ly. The defendant/appellant is allowed to adduce the additional evidence Under O rder 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. by tendering the documents annexed to the petition , as additional evidence and these may be made part of record of this appeal. Th e other prayers, made in the aforesaid petition stand rejected. Accordingly present Misc. Case is partly allowed on contest, how ever, without cost. Though the appellant/petitioner raised various issues in the revision petition, however, at the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted t hat the appellant/ petitioner has now challenged the impugned order dated 04.08. 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MC No.67 of 2010, arisen out of Title Appeal No.105 of 2009, on the ground that the NJ cases , which were tagged with the Title Suit, were not placed with the records at the time of hearing the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized t hat the NJ cases, which were proved by the defendant at the time of trial of the case ought to have been placed with the record. Learned counsel for the petitio ner has further submitted that all the certified copies of the NJ cases have bee n submitted in the petition filed before the learned appellate Court at the time of trial of the case. On perusal of the order passed by the learned appellate Court, it appears that t he prayer made by the petitioner has been allowed by allowing the appellant/peti tioner to adduce additional evidence by tendering the documents annexed to the p etition, as additional evidence. On the top of it learned counsel for the respon dent submitted that he had no objection if the documents annexed to the petition are made a part of the record of the appeal. I find no reason to modify, review or set aside the impugned order passed by the appellate Court and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order w arranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of In dia. In view of the above, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is redundant. In the result, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.