1. The facts of this Rule are as follows: The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 145 alleged to be due on two unregistered bonds. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that certain account-books which were produced by the plaintiff were not reliable.
2. The plaintiff has now moved this Court on the ground that the Judge in the lower Appellate Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing to take in evidence the plaintiff's pucca account-books to clear a misapprehension which was occasioned for the first time during the hearing of the appeal which the plaintiff had no previous opportunity of explaining.
3. The fasts would appear to be these: the appeal was heard on the 20th May and judgment was reserved. Then on the 23rd May the respondent apparently for the first time asked to put in certain account-books which, he alleged, would clear up the discrepancies in the account-books which he had already filed.
4. The learned Vakil who urged this Rule states that the accounts actually produced were kucha accounts and the books which he then wanted to produce were pucca accounts. The learned Judge refused to allow these books to be put in in evidence. We are of opinion that in doing so it cannot be said that he (sic) which material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Order XLI, Rule 27, is the rule which deals with admission of additional evidence in the Appellate Court an the rule runs as follows: 'The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (6) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronouns judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined.' Clearly, therefore, admission of additional evidence in appeal is a matter within the discretion of the Appellate Court; and there is farther provision that where additional evidence is allowed to be produced the Court shall record the reason for its admission. It is impossible to say that the learned Judge noted with material irregularity in exercising his discretion under the section in refusing to admit additional evidence three days after the argument had been heard and the appeal was reserved for judgment.
5. The Rule is, therefore, discharged with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.