HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) INTERIM APPLICATIONS XVIII, XIX AND XX the facts in brief are that respondent No. 45 Mohammad harun Haji I brahim Shaith had died on 10th October, 1991. The application for substitution of the names of heirs of respondent no. 45 had not been filed within the time prescribed and as such by operation of law the appeal automatically abated against respondent No. 45. The appellant has moved this application for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased respondent No. 45, on October 14, 1993, along with the application for setting aside the abatement and for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is LA. XVIII, while application for setting aside abatement is LA. XIX and application for substitution is la. XX, but, the cause for moving the application for substitution or for moving the application for setting aside abatement dated 4-9-1993 has been stated to be that the appellant-applicant, according to the averments made in the affidavit for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement, has Deen and is a resident of District Belgaum, while the deceased respondent had been residing at Bangalore and had died at Bangalore in October, 1991. There is no dispute among the parties that there is a distance of about 500 kilometres in between Bangalore and Belgaum. It also appears that Counsel had been appearing for respondent No. 45 prior to his death. But the fact of death of respondent No. 45 had not been brought to the notice of the Court earlier by the Counsel appearing on his behalf. Looking into the scheme of Order 22, Rule 10-A which provides and casts a duty on the Counsel appearing for the party to bring to the notice of the Court, the factum of death of that party during the pendency of the case. Order 22, Rule 10-A provides and reads as under:"whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist". This rule fastens a liability on the Counsel of a party in case of death of that party to inform the Court about the death provided the factum of death of that party in case same has come to the knowledge or notice of the Counsel himself. In this case, it appears no statement had been made by the Counsel for respondent no. 45 that respondent No. 45 has died. Sri Ananth mandagi, learned Counsel for respondent has also been the counsel for respondent No. 45. He states that he had no knowledge and information about the death of respondent No. 45. The statement of the learned Counsel cannot be taken to be incorrect and it may be taken that the death of respondent No. 45 had not been brought to the knowledge of the Counsel nor the counsel had got any information about the death of respondent no. 45. If a Counsel practising in Bangalore could not get information of the death of respondent residing at Bangalore there is every possibility of the fact that the appellant who resides at a distance of about 500 Kilometres from the City of Bangalore would hot have got the information about the death of respondent No. 45, till such time as mentioned in the affidavit. In this view of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there has been sufficient cause for appellant in not taking steps to bring on record the heirs of deceased respondent No. 45, and I myself being satisfied that there exists sufficient cause for the appellant for not taking steps within time, in my opinion, this is a fit case where this Court must exercise its jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to condone the delay in moving the application for substitution as well as for setting aside the abatement. The delay in moving the applications for setting aside the abatement as well as for moving the application for substitution is condoned and as such order of abatement is also being set aside herewith. The applications for setting aside abatement and for bringing the heirs of deceased respondent No. 45 on record are allowed. Let proposed heirs of respondent No. 45 be brought on record as respondents 45 (A) to 45 (J) and their names shall be incorporated within ten days. The applications for setting aside abatement and for bringing the heirs of deceased respondent No. 45 on record are allowed. Let proposed heirs of respondent No. 45 be brought on record as respondents 45 (A) to 45 (J) and their names shall be incorporated within ten days. ORDER ON INTERIM APPLICATION X this is an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of civil Procedure read with Section 151 thereof. By this application the appellant-applicant has prayed that he may be allowed to produce and lead the evidence in the interest of justice. It is further stated in the application that if the production is permitted, no loss would be caused to either side and if not permitted, the appellant would be put to hardship and irreparable loss. An affidavit to the same effect has been filed by the appellant in support of his application filed under Order 41, rule 27. I have heard the appellant in person and Sri Ananth mandagi. The Order 41, Rule 27 provides that the parties to appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether documentary or oral at the Appellate stage. This is a basic principle under Order 41, Rule 27 that no parties to suit are as of right, entitled to file additional evidence oral or documentary before the Appellate Court. There are two exceptions to this principle of law under Rule 27. One is contained in Clause (a) and the other is contained in Clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41, viz. , where the party seeking permission to file additional evidence shows and establishes that the party concerned has filed the documentary or oral evidence or has sought permission of the trial Court to file that evidence, but, the trial Court from whose decree the appeal has been filed had refused to admit that evidence. Then in that case the Appellate Court can permit him to file that evidence. The other circumstances covered as mentioned by clause (aa) to the effect that the party who seeks to file additional evidence has to establish and show before the appellate Court that in spite of his due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or in spite of exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced at any time when the decree appealed against was passed. These are two sets of cases in which parties to the appeal can be permitted to file additional evidence by the Court on their seeking permission. Clause (b) of order 41, Rule 27 confers power on the Appellate Court that in case it requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may call upon the party and allow it to produce the evidence. But the test is that the appellate Court in that case before it requires the party to file such evidence and it has to form an opinion as to whether it is or is not, able to pronounce judgment in the case on the basis of the evidence of the party on record. If the judgment can be pronounced and the appeal can be decided on the basis of the evidence and material on record one or the other way then the appellate Court has no power under clause (b) to allow the production of the evidence, oral or documentary. Law in this regard has been laid down in the leading case of Arjan Singh v kartar Singh and Others. In the present case, the applicant wants to file a copy of the plaint of the suit which had been filed on 16-7-1987 in the Court of Civil Judge, Belgaum by Sri Ananth mandagi. The decree in the suit giving rise to the present Appeal had been passed on September 30, 1985, it means that the document i. e. ,, plaint dated 16-7-1987 which is sought to be produced by the present appellant in this Appeal under Order 41, Rule 27 could not be filed and it could not be within the knowledge of the appellant nor could it be filed during the pendency of the present suit before the trial Court. This document is a document which has come subsequently into existence some time in 1987. Leaving aside the question of relevancy or the admisaibility of the document or genuineness etc. , to be agitated at the time of hearing of the appeal whether this document may be considered as an admissible piece of evidence at this stage? This document is a document which has come subsequently into existence some time in 1987. Leaving aside the question of relevancy or the admisaibility of the document or genuineness etc. , to be agitated at the time of hearing of the appeal whether this document may be considered as an admissible piece of evidence at this stage? The appellant is allowed under Order 41, rule 27 (1) (aa) to bring this document on record subject to the right of the respondents to raise any objection regarding reliability, admissibility or genuineness of the document. It will be open to the respondents to raise those questions. Any evidence rebuttal to this document may be filed within four weeks and the evidence or documents filed in rebuttal shall be considered only in case those documents filed by the appellant are considered by this Court to be genuine, relevant and admissible piece of evidence. Otherwise if this document filed by appellant is not considered there will be no need to consider the evidence filed in rebuttal thereof. --- *** --- .