1. So far as the appellate Court's power to permit additional evidence to be produced before it is concerned, we ought to follow the Full Bench decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 1911, which decision seems to us to be in accordance with the ruling in Second Appeal No. 819 of 1911 and with the decision in Andiappa Pillay v. Muthukumara Thevan(1).
2. In the present case, we are satisfied that the lower appellate Court did not go beyond the powers given to it by O. 41, R. 27(1)(b) of the CPC, in admitting Exs. E, E1, E and E1.
3. But we think that Ex. D was improperly admitted in evidence, as the order of the appellate Court requiring documents to be produced before it as additional evidence could not be made to include Ex. D.
4. However on a reading of the provisions found in Section 99 and Section 100, Clause (c) of the CPC, and in Section 167 of the Evidence Act.
5. It seems to us that we ought not to interfere with the decision of the Subordinate Judge in appeal, unless we are satisfied that his decision on the merits is wrong and unless, further, we are satisfied that his improper admission of Ex. D might possibly have resulted in such a wrong decision on the merits.
6. As we are not satisfied that his decision on the merits is wrong, we shall dismiss this second appeal with costs.
S.N/R.K
7. Appeal dismissed.