WPMS No. 394 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kovid Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Dobha, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have been impleaded as defendants in an appeal and, upon impleadment, have filed the written statement and, based on that, additional issues have been framed by the lower appellate court. Newly impleaded defendants thereafter filed application under 99-C purported to be under Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C. praying that the matter may be remitted to the trial court for taking evidence on the additional issues. This application was rejected by the lower appellate court on the ground that the hearing of the matter has been expedited being an old one. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that there is no palpable error in the order of the lower appellate court which requires interference at this stage in a writ jurisdiction. The power under Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C. is purely discriminatory and it is for the appellate court to take the evidence itself or remit the matter to the trial court. In the present case, since the matter has been expedited for an early disposal, the lower appellate court has taken upon itself the burden to take the evidence, for which, the court does not find any error. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The lower appellate court is directed to decide the appeal on day-to-day basis. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 27.07.2010 Shiv