As per case facts, the Trial Court decreed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed, and during the appeal, he ... moved an application to introduce additional documentary evidence to contradict the plaintiff's claim that they had sold other properties to purchase the suit property, a point the defendant's original written statement pleaded ignorance of. The Appellate Court allowed the additional evidence, reversed the decree, and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether an Appellate Court must consider a party's original pleadings before admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appellate Court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence to ensure the new evidence supports the case set up in the initial pleadings. Since the High Court failed to conduct this necessary pre-condition examination (the initial pleading stated "not within the knowledge"), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the proceedings for re-consideration