Judgment : This civil revision petition filed by defendants 2 and 3 is against the dismissal order dated 8. 1990 in I.A.No.204 of 1989 in A.S.No.183 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri. The said A.S.No.183 of 1989 is the appeal against O.S.No.1135 of 1979. The said I.ANo.204 of 1989 is for appointment of a commissioner for noting down the physical features and measuring the suit property. The said I.A. was dismissed on the ground inter alia that earlier, even in the suit, a similar application viz., I.A.No.338 of 1987 was filed by the petitioners for appointment of a Commissioner and that it was dismissed on 210. 1988. The petitioners did not choose to file any C.R.P. Against the said order. No doubt, even though no C.R.P. was filed, there is no bar for the petitioners to canvass the correctness of the said dismissal order in the above said appeal in view of Sec.105(1), C.P.C. Vide also Narayanan v. Krishnan, A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 3. 2. But what is contended before me in this C.R.P. by the learned counsel for the petitioners is only that the Court below should have heard the present I.A.No.204 of 1989 only along with the appeal and that the said I.A. should not have been disposed of even before hearing the appeal. This contention is advanced by him on the alleged premise that the said I.A. is in the nature of an application for reception of additional evidence under O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C., since the report of the Commissioner which he would file after executing the warrant of commission would be in the nature of additional evidence in the case. In support of this alleged premises, the learned counsel cited Rajagopala v. Ramachandra, A.I.R. 1969 Mad. 144. But actually that decision is against the premise. It only observes as follows: “I may observe that appointment of a Commissioner in the appeal is a rarity and is seldom resorted to. In my view, such an appointment is not authorised by Rule 27 of O.41. That rule relates to additional evidence and the language of Rules 27(1)(b) does not lend itself to a construction that the report of a commissioner to be appointed and submitted in the appellate stage is regarded as additional evidence for purposes of that rule.” 3. In my view, such an appointment is not authorised by Rule 27 of O.41. That rule relates to additional evidence and the language of Rules 27(1)(b) does not lend itself to a construction that the report of a commissioner to be appointed and submitted in the appellate stage is regarded as additional evidence for purposes of that rule.” 3. However, even assuming that the present I.A. is in the nature of application for reception of additional evidence. I may point but that what is observed in Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh, (1951)1 M.L.J. 556: 1951 S.C.J. 274: 1951 S.C.R. 258: A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 193, cited by the learned counsel, is that where the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or witness to be examined, to enable it to pronounce judgment, then the legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is when on an examination of the evidence as it stands,some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent, not where a discovery is made outside the Court, of fresh evidence and an application by a party is made to import it. It is clear that this observation was made in the light of O.41, Rule 27(1)(b), C.P.C. in contra distinction with O.41, Rule 27(1)(a) or (aa), C.P.C. So, it cannot be said that the present I. ANo.204 of 1989 initiated by a party to the litigation has necessarily to be heard only along with the appeal when the examination of the existing evidence will be made by the appellate Court. It is well settled that additional evidence should not be permitted at the appellate stage to enable a party to remove certain lacuna and to fill in gaps. The position is not doubt different when the appellate Court itself requires certain evidence to enable it to do justice between the parties vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal, 1958 M.L.J. (Crl) 85: 1958 S.C.J. 150: 1958 S.C.R 533: A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 912. The “requirements” of the appellate Court, spoken to in O.41, Rule 27(1)(b), C.P.C. must also be limited to those cases, where it is necessary “to pronounce Judgment”. There too, the rule does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for pronouncing the Judgment in a particular way. It is only for removing a lacuna that the appellate Court can admit additional evidence. There too, the rule does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for pronouncing the Judgment in a particular way. It is only for removing a lacuna that the appellate Court can admit additional evidence. Vide Bombay Corporation v. Pancham, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1008 Even assuming that the present case could fall under O.41 Rule 27, C.P.C. it cannot at all come under O.41, Rule 27 (1)(b) since it is not a case where the appellate Court itself “requires” additional evidence. But it is a case where a party, viz., the petitioners seek to have it. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on M.Mustaq Sheriff v. Zamrud Begum, 1984 T.L.N.J. 374, but the following observation therein is only against the petitioners: “As already pointed out, the appellate Court has power to appoint a Commissioner for the disposal of the lis, but that power has to be sparingly utilised. In the instant case, the defendants, after the suit, seek to appoint a Commissioner solely on the ground, to find out as to who is in possession of the northern and the southern halves of the suit property. This cannot be a ground for the appellate Court to appoint commissioner because that fact has already been gone into by the trial court and evidence was recorded on this aspect.” No doubt, the said decision also observes as follows: “Whether the evidence placed before the trial Court is sufficient to grant an injunction is a matter that has to be first considered before the appointment of a Commissioner. Legitimate occasion for the exercise of discretion in appointing a Commissioner by the appellate Court is, not as and when, the part seeks for appointment of a Commissioner ..... If the appellate Court, on examining the evidence adduced before the trial Court, finds, that some evidence is apparently lacking or it finds an inherent lacuna or defect in the order of the trial Court which has to be filled up for the just disposal of the appeal, then it can appoint a Commissioner. In other words, the appellate Court, on the facts of the case after hearing the appeal, should first be satisfied, that the appointment of a commissioner and his report is a necessity. In other words, the appellate Court, on the facts of the case after hearing the appeal, should first be satisfied, that the appointment of a commissioner and his report is a necessity. Then only it can appoint a Commissioner.” But it can be easily inferred that the said observation is only in the light of O.41, Rule 27 (1)(b), C.P.C. and not in the light of O.41, Rule 27 (1)(a) or (aa), C.P.C. which are cases where parties to suit seek to have additional evidence. That apart, as per the above referred to another decision of this court, namely Rajagopala v. Ramachandra, A.I.R. 1969 Mad. 144, the above said Commissioner application cannot be brought under O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C. 5. That apart, if the present I.A.No.204 of 1989 is to be heard only along with the appeal, then, if the Court comes to the conclusion, while hearing the appeal that the said I.A. should be allowed and a commissioner should be appointed for noting down* the physical features and measuring the suit property, it will only prolong unnecessarily the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, which normally should be avoided. That apart, if really the petitioners wanted the hearing of the said LA along with the appeal, they should have made such a request to the Court, but nothing was shown to me to show that such a request was made and the request was turned down by the Court. Even the grounds in this C.R.P. do not allege that such a request was made before the lower Appellate Court. 6. That apart, the affidavit in support of the above said I.ANo.204 of 1989 does not say how actually the measuring of the suit property and noting down the physical features thereof are relevant for deciding the issues in question in the suit. The affidavit is very much bereft of particulars regarding the necessity for a commissioner for doing the above said work. In the circumstances, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below, nor would it occasion on failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. This civil revision petition is therefore, not admitted, but dismissed.