THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 15597 OF 2010 Date of Judgment: 23.11.2011 Between: Kachhi Brothers …Petitioner and Dy. Registrar Intellectual Property Appellate Board Guna Complex Annex-1, and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 15597 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the parties. A trade mark dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 7 is pending with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board which is impleaded in the writ petition through its Deputy Registrar as first respondent. The petitioner had filed an application requesting the first respondent to receive certain documents as additional evidence on his behalf in support of his case. The said application was rejected by the appellate Board under the impugned order. Questioning the said order, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents produced as additional evidence ought to have been considered and received by the Appellate Board. The learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. The Appellate Board dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner was trying to make out a new case by producing some documents, on which the respondents had not placed any reliance in the present case, and that the question as to alleged fabrication of document being Bill No. 406 could not be tested in the Appellate Board. The application filed by the petitioner for reception of documents is in the nature of additional evidence and the said application is akin to one under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N. Sahani [1] it is appropriate that the Appellate Board should consider the application and the documents filed along with the said application, while hearing the appeal itself, as, at that stage, the Appellate Board will be in a position to consider the relevancy and proof of the documents and also as to whether the said application satisfies the ingredients for production of additional evidence akin to Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the application of the petitioner is remitted back to the Appellate Board for fresh consideration and orders in accordance with law and as per the procedure of the Appellate Board, subject to relevancy and proof of the documents at the time of hearing of the appeal. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 23.11.2011 KR [1] (2001) 10 SCC 619