JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND' J. Factual Matrix:- 1. The appellant in this case is Dr. (Mrs.) K. Lakshmiton Singha who has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 in Money Suit No.8/2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge' Senior Division No.1' Cachar' Silchar dismissing the suit and holding that the appellant is not entitled to compensation for libelous and slanderous imputations by the respondent against the appellant. Both the appellant and the respondent will be referred to' according to their original standing in the Money suit. The respondent defendant is Dr. Bijoy Bhushan Das. 2. The appellant/Plaintiff through her plaint submitted that she hails from a renowned family and her husband had served under the Assam Civil Service as Executive Officer' Zilla Parishad-cum-ADC. The plaintiff was a senior Grade Assistant Professor and at the time' she filed the Money Suit' she was holding the post of in-charge Principal of the esteemed Cachar College at Silchar. She had an unblemished career for 30 years and was well reputed as a social worker. The defendant is a retired Principal of G.C. College' Silchar and presently practicing as an advocate in Cachar' Silchar. 3. The defendant respondent by addressing a pamphlet without any date (probably in the month of May' 2016) to the members of Cachar College and without marking the pamphlet as ‘confidential’' ‘restricted’' ‘secret’ or any other such grading'circulated the same to the general public and also endorsed copies to the Education Commissioner' Government of Assam' DHE' Assam. According to the appellant' this pamphlet which was marked as document -1which contains various allegations' are utterly baseless and false. 4. After receipt of the pamphlet (Doc-1) followed by many other letters as stated by the Director of Higher Education' from the defendant' the Director of Higher Education' Assam vide memo No. DHE/CE/Misc/152/2016/5-A' dated 12.05.2016' called the plaintiff and the defendant to attend his office chamber on 25.05.2016 along with two GB members namely (1) Dr. Ajay Ray –Teachers’ Representative and (2) Professor C.R. Bhattacharjee VC’s Nominee' for a discussion on the matter. However' no action was taken against the plaintiff. Ajay Ray –Teachers’ Representative and (2) Professor C.R. Bhattacharjee VC’s Nominee' for a discussion on the matter. However' no action was taken against the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently by another undated and similar pamphlet (probably in the month of January 2017) addressed to the MP Silchar constituency' circulated (DOC -2)and endorsed copies and sundries to all including the Commissioner' Higher Education Assam without marking the same as ‘ confidential’ ' ‘restricted’' ‘secret’ or any other such grading and this pamphlet was also circulated to the general public captioned as subject “Cachar College Scam and Scandal 2015-16”. Derogatory and defamatory allegations were leveled against the plaintiff through the subsequent pamphlet also referred to as DOC-2. 5. It is further contended that the Director of Higher Education' Assam' on receipt of DOC-2 memo No.G(B)AC/25/2004/361 dated 19.01.2017 ordered for a copy of the DOC-2 and directed the plaintiff to submit a detailed report on the matter. The letter was received by the plaintiff on 06.02.2017 and accordingly the plaintiff submitted a detailed report. The Director of Higher Education then visited Cachar College on 20.03.2017 and took stock of the situation of the college and the allegations made by the defendant and verbally opined that he had found everything satisfactory against the plaintiff. Unfortunately' on his return to his office' vide letter under reference No.G(B)AC/ 25/2004/ 402 dated 23.03.2017' he directed the plaintiff to show cause against the allegation relating to 41 faculty members appointed against non-sanctioned faculty posts. Notice was received by the plaintiff on 24.03.2017 and she submitted her reply. It is contended that the false allegations by the defendant through the DOC- 1 and DOC-2 are defamatory and this tarnished the image of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus deserves a minimum compensation of Rs. 1 crore. 6. The defendant respondent filed written statement denying cause of action and maintainability of the suit. It was averred that the suit was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties including Dr. Debashish Kar' ex-principal of Cachar College' the Director of Higher Education' Government of Assam' and each and every member of the governing body of the Cachar College itself. It was averred that the suit was not maintainable under the Assam College Management Rules' the Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rules and other relevant laws and rules. Debashish Kar' ex-principal of Cachar College' the Director of Higher Education' Government of Assam' and each and every member of the governing body of the Cachar College itself. It was averred that the suit was not maintainable under the Assam College Management Rules' the Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rules and other relevant laws and rules. It was contended that the plaintiff had no locus standii to file the suit against the defendant and to claim any relief against him in his individual personal capacity. The suit was barred by limitation and was thereby liable to be dismissed with costs. The plaint was not prepared as per prescribed rules' and the same was not signed and verified properly' and the affidavit annexed' along with the plaint' was defective. The defendant denied the statements in the plaint including the statement at paragraph No.1 that the plaintiff hailed from a renowned family. The defendant categorically stated that the plaintiff was holding the rank of Associate Professor in Manipuri and not the post of Principal in/charge which is not a post per se. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had falsely claimed that she had an unblemished record of service as her service record was fraught with blemishes' instances of insubordination' inefficiency' lack of sense of dignity' decency and decorum' and she was already under suspension for her blemished record of service and departmental proceedings were drawn up against her. 7. It was further contended that the document No.1 was not annexed with the plaint' and the defendant denied addressing the document No.1. The defendant denied that he had made any false' derogatory and defamatory statements against the plaintiff. The paragraph- 8 of the plaint marked as Annexure-B and the column with heading 1 to 1(16)' were categorically denied by the defendant. The defendant contended that the letter dated 12.05.2016 issued by the Director' Higher Education' Government of Assam does not disclose the so-called document No.1 but discloses a letter of Cachar College dated 19.04.2016. The defendant stoutly denied that the plaintiff was not found to be liable and no action was taken against her. It was submitted by the defendant that he could not attend the meeting allegedly held on 25.05.2016 and he had never received the minutes of the meeting as President of the Governing Body. The defendant stoutly denied that the plaintiff was not found to be liable and no action was taken against her. It was submitted by the defendant that he could not attend the meeting allegedly held on 25.05.2016 and he had never received the minutes of the meeting as President of the Governing Body. The letter dated 19.01.2017 was not sent to the defendant by the Director and the defendant had no connection with the matter referred to in para 12 of the document-2. The defendant contended that the Director never opined that he found everything satisfactory against the plaintiff on his visit to the Cachar College premises on 20.03.2017. The defendant' not being a party to the letter dated 23.03.2017' is not in a position to know the grounds for issuing show-cause notice against the plaintiff. 8. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts that she was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.03.2017 for a number of charges which also includes financial anomalies to the tune of crores of rupees. This factum dispels the entire case of the plaintiff and her claim that she has a renowned position in the society. The defendant categorically denied that the plaintiff is entitled to a compensation of at least Rupees 1 crore and the defendant is liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. Arguments for the Plaintiff/Appellant :- 9. Heard learned counsel Ms. S.B.Choudhury for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. G.R.Dutta' for the Respondent. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant that only because of the pamphlets the plaintiff was suspended' but later the plaintiff was reinstated. The defendant is responsible for circulating the pamphlets in a most irresponsible manner tarnishing the image of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the allegations in the pamphlets are not required to be proved as the plaintiff was exonerated and reinstated to her service. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has erred by not appreciating the true meaning of the term “defamation”. When imputations are not liable to culminate into a criminal proceeding' such imputations tantamount to defamation. 11. In this case' the imputations were not sufficient even to proceed and punish the incumbent in a departmental proceeding as the plaintiff was later exonerated and reinstated into service. 12. When imputations are not liable to culminate into a criminal proceeding' such imputations tantamount to defamation. 11. In this case' the imputations were not sufficient even to proceed and punish the incumbent in a departmental proceeding as the plaintiff was later exonerated and reinstated into service. 12. It is contended that no documents were required to be proved as admitted facts are not required to be proved as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act' 1872 (the Evidence Act for short). The defendant in his own name circulated libellous statements against the plaintiff. The Trial Court erred while not appreciating the basic and essential elements of defamation. On the basis of such imputations' disciplinary proceedings were drawn by the authority but later the plaintiff was exonerated.The plaintiff is entitled to damages. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff admitted her suspension through a departmental proceeding holds no water as the plaintiff did not admit her guilt' but the plaintiff only admitted of being suspended through departmental proceedings. Further' the learned counsel for the plaintiff laid stress in her argument that as per Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure' 1908 and Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure' 1908 (CPC for short)' the evidence of the plaintiff which could not be furnished at the stage of trial can be taken into consideration by the Court at the appellate stage. 13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has prayed to remand the matter to be tried again and accord an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce documentary evidence which she could not produce at the stage of trial. It is further submitted that the engaged counsel of the plaintiff had passed away and this prevented the plaintiff from producing the documentary evidence before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that even without a prayer in the appeal memo' the plaintiff can pray to remand this case back to adduce additional evidence' which evidence the plaintiff could not adduce during the trial as her learned counsel passed away during the pendency of the trial' depriving the plaintiff her right to adduce evidence relating to the imputations against her. Arguments for the Respondents :- 14. Arguments for the Respondents :- 14. Per contra' the learned counsel for the respondent laid stress in his argument that at this stage new facts have been introduced through the appeal. The plaintiff is trying to fill up lacunae by introducing new facts and by submitting that as the engaged counsel had passed away' the plaintiff was unable to produce some documentary evidence which was crucial for the decision of her case. 15. The plaintiff admitted that she had failed to prove her case through proper documentary evidence. At this stage' without even praying for additional evidence' under Order 41 Rule 27' the plaintiff has submitted during argument that this case may be remanded to adduce additional evidence. The learned counsel for the defendant laid stress in his argument that without even a hint in the appeal memo' now' the plaintiff cannot pray for additional evidence. 16. The learned counsel for the defendant has serious objection stating that by remanding back' the plaintiff would try to fill in lacunae' but even if the plaintiff is allowed to fill in lacunae' the plaintiff's case would not succeed as the plaintiff has no case at all against the defendant. Decision and Findings:- 17. The Trial Court formulated 6 (Six) issues which are as follows:– “(1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable on facts and in law? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (4) Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation? (5) Whether the defendant' by way of two numbers of pamphlet (marked as Doc-1 and Doc-2)' defamed and lowered the plaintiff to the estimation of the Higher Education authorities and other right thinking persons in the vicinity? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief in this suit and if so' to what relief or reliefs?” 18. However' in this case' the parties have agitated only issue No. 5 and issue No. 6. 19. On scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Trial Court' it is revealed that the plaintiff failed to prove her case by exhibiting the two pamphlets as alleged in her plaint.Her case rests basically on two pamphlets and some letters which the plaintiff had failed to exhibit before the Trial Court. 20. 19. On scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Trial Court' it is revealed that the plaintiff failed to prove her case by exhibiting the two pamphlets as alleged in her plaint.Her case rests basically on two pamphlets and some letters which the plaintiff had failed to exhibit before the Trial Court. 20. It would be apt to mention at this juncture that the plaintiff through her cross-examination as PW1 admitted that the Director of Higher Education vide letter dated 27.03.2017'issued show cause to her' regarding manipulation of records' false appointment' misappropriation of funds' theft of trees of Cachar College and subsequently another show cause notice was issued by the Director of Higher Education dated 11.04.2017' regarding illegal appointment of 34 teachers including manipulation of records and unauthorized utilization of Rs. 10 lacs. It was also admitted that there was an inquiry against the plaintiff regarding the aforesaid allegations. 21. The plaintiff also admitted that on 17.07.2017 again' the Director of Higher Education issued show cause to her regarding misleading the Higher authority. The plaintiff admitted that she was placed under suspension by the Director of Higher Education vide letter dated 27.03.2017 and the departmental proceeding was initiated.The plaintiff admitted that the aforementioned facts were not stated in the plaint nor any documents were submitted to the Court to show the findings of the departmental proceedings or the status of the departmental proceedings initiated against her. 22. She also admitted that in the document Nos. 1 and 2' as mentioned in the plaint there are allegations of misappropriation of public funds and financial anomalies but' charges were also formulated against her in the departmental proceeding. Thus' it is discernible that the plaintiff's suspension was not based only on the communiqué as alleged by the plaintiff but also a departmental proceeding was drawn up against her on basis of well-founded allegations against her. 23. It was thus held by the Trial Court that the evidence on record reflects that the statements/allegations in the pamphlets could not be termed as false and fabricated statements' rather the statements were fair and bona fide comments. The Trial Court went ahead and held that the burden of proof could not be discharged by the plaintiff. No independent witnesses were examined by the plaintiff to support her stance. The Trial Court went ahead and held that the burden of proof could not be discharged by the plaintiff. No independent witnesses were examined by the plaintiff to support her stance. The plaintiff failed to prove that the statements and allegations and imputations were read by the public who neglected her and dishonoured her' through cogent evidence. 24. It was also held by the learned Trial Court that evidence is lacking relating to the circulation of the statements against the plaintiff that she was dishonoured by the people around her' or by her family members or higher authorities and the society. She failed to prove that she was isolated by the society and was held in low esteem. 25. The Doc-1 and Doc-2 which forms the substratum of the case were not exhibited by the plaintiff. 26. A scrutiny of the appeal memo reveals that the plaintiff did not pray for adducing additional evidence and bring into record the Doc-1 and Doc-2 relied upon by the plaintiff during the trial' nor did she pray to produce the same at the stage of appeal. Now' at the fag end' during the stage of argument' the plaintiff has prayed for producing the documents i.e. Doc-1 and Doc-2 as additional evidence. 27. The plaintiff repeatedly submitted that she was suspended only because of the imputations in the Doc-1 and Doc-2 against her' but on the contrary' it is clear that admittedly the plaintiff was suspended on the basis of the departmental proceedings. Departmental proceedings are based on evidence of misconduct and not on stray incidents of defamation through circulated documents. It is apparent that based on evidence' the plaintiff was placed on suspension. The plaintiff even failed to produce the documents relating to her reinstatement and prove on what ground' she was exonerated. Through the appeal memo' the plaintiff never mentioned that her engaged counsel passed away during the trial and this prevented her from producing certain important documents before the Trial Court as documentary evidence. Thus' at a much later stage' the plaintiff is now trying to broach the subject of additional evidence owing to death of her lawyer during trial. It would be apt to reiterate that there is no hint in the appeal memo that her lawyer passed away during trial of this case. Thus' at a much later stage' the plaintiff is now trying to broach the subject of additional evidence owing to death of her lawyer during trial. It would be apt to reiterate that there is no hint in the appeal memo that her lawyer passed away during trial of this case. Although the defendant did not adduce any evidence' the plaintiff’s case' being without any specific plea which led to her defamation' suffers from infirmity. Suffice it to mention that the defendant could assail the plaintiff’s case through her cross-examination. It is only in the appeal that the plaintiff has admitted of her suspension and reinstatement. 28. As per Order XLI Rule 2 CPC: “The appellant shall not' except by leave of the Court' urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal' but the Appellate Court' in deciding the appeal' shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by the leave of the Court under this rule: Provided that the Court shall not rests its decision on any other ground' unless the party who may be affected' had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground.” Thus' it is apparent that even if the appellant had not taken the plea of adducing additional evidence in the appeal memo' yet the appellant is not debarred from submitting such a prayer at the stage of argument on the ground that her lawyer passed away during the trial and she was unable to produce Doc-1 and Doc-2 as evidence. It is not necessary for the Court to be confined to the grounds set forth in the memo of the appeal. 29. It is however' disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that no leave was urged by the appellant to be heard in support of the ground introduced anew at the time of the argument that the appellant’s learned engaged counsel passed away and she was prevented from adducing documentary evidence in the form of Doc-1 and Doc-2. It is not disputed by the appellant as well as by the respondent that it is the discretion of the Court to remand back a case. 30. The Doc-1 was reproduced in the plaint and elaborately reproduced at paragraph 8 of the plaint. It is not disputed by the appellant as well as by the respondent that it is the discretion of the Court to remand back a case. 30. The Doc-1 was reproduced in the plaint and elaborately reproduced at paragraph 8 of the plaint. There is no direct allegation against the appellant/plaintiff through Doc-1 in paragraph 8 of the plaint that she had indulged in corruption and is responsible for illegal appointments against non- sanctioned posts without GB’s approval. It could be deciphered from the plaint at paragraph 10 that Doc-2 is similar to Doc-1 and it was also referred to as pamphlet. It was also alleged that several letters followed Doc-1. The plaintiff through paragraph 13 of the plaint submitted that after receipt of Doc-1' the Director of Higher Education' Assam' visited Cachar College and it was admitted by the plaintiff that everything was found satisfactory. Thus' there are contradictory statements made in the plaint itself. The contention of the plaintiff is that after her return to her office' the Director of Higher Education vide letter No.G(B)AC/25/2004/402 dated 23rd March 2017 directed the plaintiff to show cause against 41 non-sanctioned posts of the faculty. It was not mentioned in the plaint that on the basis of this sole allegation of appointment of 41 non- sanctioned faculty posts' the plaintiff was placed under suspension. It is left for this Court to presume on what basis the plaintiff was suspended from her services. Paragraph 8 of the plaint was also reiterated by the plaintiff through her evidence-in-affidavit at the same paragraph 8. The plaintiff even refrained from exhibiting the show cause notice issued to her on 23.03.2017. 31. The plaintiff submitted her examination-in-chief on affidavit on 24.09.2019' and she was cross-examined on 03.08.2022' and on subsequent dates. By then' the plaintiff was cleared of her charges. As PW-1 she admitted in her cross-examination that she was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.03.2017 for a number of charges including financial anomalies but she was cleared of her charges. The plaintiff’s prayer at this juncture appears to be absurd as she has also prayed through this appeal for damages and it has been submitted in the argument that as she has been cleared of her charges' the charges are basically false charges and she is entitled to damages of around Rs.1'00'00'000/- (Rupees One Crore). The plaintiff’s prayer at this juncture appears to be absurd as she has also prayed through this appeal for damages and it has been submitted in the argument that as she has been cleared of her charges' the charges are basically false charges and she is entitled to damages of around Rs.1'00'00'000/- (Rupees One Crore). Even during cross-examination' the plaintiff could have produced documentary evidence relating to her reinstatement after her suspension. Even at the stage of argument of this appeal' the plaintiff’s prayer is not to submit any document relating to her reinstatement' but her prayer is to submit the Doc-1 and the Doc-2 as evidence. Thus' the plaintiff’s prayer is shrouded in mystery at this stage of appeal. 32. However' the plaintiff admitted in her cross-examination that the Director of Higher Education vide letter dated 27.03.2017 issued show cause relating to manipulation of records' false appointment' misappropriation of funds' theft of trees of the college. She also admitted that another show cause notice was issued by the Director on 11.04.2017 relating to illegal appointment of 34 teachers including manipulation of records and unauthorized utilization of Rs.10'00'000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs). The plaintiff also admitted that on 17.07.2017 the Director issued show cause against her relating to misleading the higher authority. The plaintiff also admitted that on 24.03.1984' she received show cause from the Principal of Cachar College regarding non- furnishing of her leave application for unauthorized absence in the month of March' 1984. She also admitted of having received show cause notice dated 24.09.1984 from the Principal of Cachar College relating to unauthorized occupancy of the Girls Hostel without paying hostel rent and keeping guests without permission of the authority concerned. She admitted that she received a show cause notice on 30.04.1993 from the Principal of Cachar College for not performing the duty of an Invigilator in violation of an order. Finally' the plaintiff admitted that her confirmation to service was not considered in the resolution No. 11(A) dated 24.08.1993 by the Governing Body of Cachar College. 33. It is also apt to mention at this juncture that the plaintiff referred to certain letters with dates in paragraphs 9' 12 and 13 of the plaint' but these letters were not produced as evidence by the plaintiff. 34. 33. It is also apt to mention at this juncture that the plaintiff referred to certain letters with dates in paragraphs 9' 12 and 13 of the plaint' but these letters were not produced as evidence by the plaintiff. 34. After considering the pleadings and the evidence' this Court is constrained to hold that when the plaintiff filed the plaint' she was placed under suspension' but she did not mention in the plaint that she was under suspension. However' she admitted in her cross-examination that she was under suspension when she brought up the suit for damages against the respondent. In sum and substance' it is thereby held that when the plaintiff at this fag end of the argument has prayed for adducing additional evidence on the basis that she was exonerated from all the allegations and charges and she was reinstated' the plaintiff ought to have produced certain documents relating to her reinstatement to service and revocation of the suspension order. The plaintiff was continuously cross-examined from 3 August' 2022 and she was further cross-examined on 9th September' 2022. The plaintiff was again cross-examined on 26th October' 2022 and on 23rd November' 2022. During this entire period' the plaintiff could have easily produced the order of her reinstatement as reliable documentary evidence to substantiate her claim for damages. 35. First of all' this case is even without a foundation as the plaintiff who brought up this case i.e. Money Suit No. 08/2017 against the respondent concealed that she was placed under suspension. The plaintiff was already under suspension when the plaint was filed. The crucial question that arises is that when did the plaintiff/appellant learn that her engaged counsel passed away. There is not a hint in the plaint nor in the trial court records that the engaged counsel of the plaintiff had passed away. She stood the test of cross- examination on four different dates. This Court is not convinced that during the pendency of the trial' the plaintiff’s engaged counsel passed away. The records reveal that the evidence-in-chief was filed by the learned counsel' who filed the plaint. During the pendency of the trial' the learned counsel who filed the plaint was present as the records reveal. 36. It is thus held that the plaintiff refrained from submitting the documents before the Trial Court for reasons best known to her. The records reveal that the evidence-in-chief was filed by the learned counsel' who filed the plaint. During the pendency of the trial' the learned counsel who filed the plaint was present as the records reveal. 36. It is thus held that the plaintiff refrained from submitting the documents before the Trial Court for reasons best known to her. This is not a case where the plaintiff was deprived from submitting her documentary evidence on account of death of her engaged counsel. It is held that the plaintiff could not show through documentary evidence' as well as through her evidence and pleadings that she is entitled to damages for any slanderous and libelous statements through documents or other means. It has been correctly held by the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove her case. It was correctly held by the Trial Court that in a civil suit' the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and in the instant case' the plaintiff failed to discharge her burden. Further' it was held that no independent witness was examined by the plaintiff to substantiate her case. To prove defamation' the plaintiff had to prove that the libelous statements were read by another person and the person who read the statements' neglected and dishonoured her. It was held that there is no evidence to show that after circulation of the statements' the plaintiff was dishonoured by the people' her family members and the higher authorities' and the society isolated her and she was held in low esteem. The vilifying statements were not proved. 37. Although' a civil suit is required to be proved only on preponderance of probabilities' here in this case' the Doc-1 was addressed to ‘Respected Members of Cachar College Family’ and the Doc-2 was addressed to the M.P. These documents cannot be held to be widely circulated documents' tarnishing the image of the plaintiff. So' when the plaintiff admitted in her cross-examination about several show cause notices issued to her during her tenure' this case is based only on 2 (Two) documents' Doc-1 and Doc-2. Even through her pleadings and the evidence' the plaintiff failed to prove that proceedings were initiated based on these 2 (Two) documents. Admittedly' there were several allegations against the plaintiff. 38. Even through her pleadings and the evidence' the plaintiff failed to prove that proceedings were initiated based on these 2 (Two) documents. Admittedly' there were several allegations against the plaintiff. 38. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India-Versus-Ibrahim Uddin and Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 that :- “36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However' as an exception' Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled' as of right' to the admission of such evidence. Thus' the provision does not apply' when on the basis of evidence on record' the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide: K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy 'Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham'Soonda Ramv. Rameshwaralal' and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy).” 39. It is true that a case can be remanded back to the Appellate Court to consider the evidence as per Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. However' it has been held in my foregoing discussions that the plaintiff’s/appellant’s prayer is not limited to the evidence already adduced before the Trial Court. It would be apt to reiterate that the plaintiff failed to mention about her suspension order in the plaint and now' the plaintiff/appellant is taking the plea of exoneration to prove that the imputations which had marred the image of the plaintiff are false. It is apparent from the records that the appellant’s/ plaintiff’s advocate represented her during the pendency of the trial and while the plaintiff was cross-examined' she had admitted that suspension was revoked and she was reinstated. She categorically stated in her cross-examination as PW1 that she was cleared of the charges. What prevented the plaintiff/appellant from producing the revocation letter and the letter of her reinstatement at the stage of trial. This Appellate Court cannot supplement the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/appellant in the Trial Court. She categorically stated in her cross-examination as PW1 that she was cleared of the charges. What prevented the plaintiff/appellant from producing the revocation letter and the letter of her reinstatement at the stage of trial. This Appellate Court cannot supplement the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/appellant in the Trial Court. In the absence of satisfactory reasons for non-production of evidence in the Trial Court' the additional evidence cannot be allowed to be adduced. It is held that the appellant/plaintiff had ample of opportunities to produce certain evidence in the Trial Court' but she failed to do so or elected not to do so. 40. In the wake of the foregoing discussions' this appeal is hereby dismissed as this appeal is bereft of merits. 41. Send back the Trial Court Records.