JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE circumstances in which this revision petition has been filed are that the applicant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, chhindwara, challenging the validity of land acquisition proceedings of certain lands and claiming a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings were illegal and void. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Thereupon the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional district Judge, Chhindwara, against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, class II. ( 2. ) WHILE the appeal was pending for hearing, the aforesaid non-applicants presented an application under Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil procedure for being allowed to tender in evidence a document. They also made an application for amendment of their written statement. Both these applications were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on the condition of payment of costs to the petitioner. The plaintiff applicant has now come up in revision against the order of the Additional District Judge permitting the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 to tender additional evidence and to amend their written statement. ( 3. ) IN my judgment, the learned Additional District Judge followed an altogether erroneous course in considering the application of the non-applicants nos. 4 and 5 for amendment of their written statement and their application under Order 41, rule 27 of the Code without first hearing the appeal on merits. The powers of the appellate Court to take additional evidence are regulated by Order 41, rule 27 (t ). Under that rule the appellate Court can permit the parties to an appeal to produce additional evidence if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (b) the appellate Court requires any document or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause these conditions must be satisfied before additional evidence can be allowed to be tendered at the appellate stage. The rule is not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak part of his case and to fill up an omission in appeal. The rule is not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak part of his case and to fill up an omission in appeal. Now, the question whether the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted or the question whether the appellate Court requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or whether there is any other substantial cause for permitting additional evidence cannot in its very nature be decided unless and until the appeal is first heard on merits. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Parsotim v. Lal Mohar (air 1931 p c 143= 58 I A 254) and by the supreme Court in Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others (air 1951 s c 193=1951 s c r 258.) the legitimate occasion for admitting additional evidence in appeal is when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect calling for the exercise of the discretion under Order 41, rule 27 (1) becomes apparent. A party may during the pendency of an appeal move the Court for being allowed to produce additional evidence; but the appellate Court is clearly not in a position to decide whether additional evidence should or should not be allowed to be produced unless and until the appeal is first heard on merits. This seems to be plain enough and does not require elaboration. ( 4. ) EVEN though the position that an appellate Court is not in a position to decide whether additional evidence should be allowed in the appeal unless it is first heard on merits is clear enough on the wording of Order 41, rule 27 (1) itself, the practice has grown up in the lower appellate Courts of deciding an application under Order 41, rule 27 (1) immediately after it is moved and even before hearing the appeal on merits. It is beyond comprehension how the appellate Courts are able to decide such applications when they have no idea whatsoever of the merits of the appeal. This practice must stop forthwith and no lower appellate Court should yield to the request of any party to consider its application under Order 41, rule 27 (1) before the hearing of the appeal itself. This practice must stop forthwith and no lower appellate Court should yield to the request of any party to consider its application under Order 41, rule 27 (1) before the hearing of the appeal itself. The appeal must first be heard on the merits and then the lower appellate Court should decide whether the application for production of additional evidence should or should not be allowed. If the application is allowed, then, no doubt, the appeal has to be heard again on merits after the reception of additional evidence for final disposal. ( 5. ) WHAT has been said in relation to an application under Order 41, rule 27 (1) applies equally to the disposal of an application for amendment of pleadings made at the appellate stage. The question whether a party should or should not be allowed to amend its pleadings at the appellate stage cannot in its very nature be decided unless the appeal is first heard on merits. The order of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, permitting the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 to produce additional evidence and to amend their written statement must, therefore, be set aside and the Additional District Judge must be directed to consider the said non-applicants application under Order 41, rule 27 and the application for amendment of the written statement after hearing the appeal on merits. ( 6. ) FOR this reasons, this petition is allowed. The order dated 30th October 1968 of the Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, is set aside and he is directed to dispose of in accordance with law the applications presented by the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 under Order 41, rule 27 (L) and for amendment of their written statement in the light of this order. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this petition. Application allowed.