IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1831 of 2008 Prabhagiya Logging Prabandhak & another …Petitioners Versus Taufiq Ahmad ... Respondent Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate for petitioners Dated: October 13, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure no. 8) passed by Additional District Judge, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar, in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2008, Regional Manager & others versus Taufiq Ahmad & another. Heard Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record. It appears from perusal of the record that the respondent by way of application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. intended to file certain documents as additional evidence. The application was objected by the petitioners before the court below where Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2008 was pending. The lower appellate Court after having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the provisions of law, allowed the application on cost of Rs.200/- only, vide impugned order dated 01.09.2008. 2 Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. the court below ought to have recorded the specific reasons on which the application was to be allowed, but the court below had committed an illegality by ignoring the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. He has further submitted that the documents which the respondent intended to file before the lower appellate Court were very well within the knowledge of the respondent at the stage of trial. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of language envisaged in Order 41 Rule 27 (b) C.P.C. it is the discretion of the court to allow application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C if the court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment. The court below while allowing the application has also recorded the reasonings to this effect. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below. The petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 3