JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 2.5.1994 whereby he has allowed the additional evidence to be placed on record of prayer having been made by the respondent plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff Dharam Chand filed a suit against the respondent appellant for eviction of the suit premises and the suit was dismissed by the learned trial court on 4.11.1993. Against this judgment the plaintiff has filed an appeal which is pending before the learned District Judge and during the pendency of this appeal and application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff respondent which has been allowed vide the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the learned first appellate court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order and the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. have not been taken note of while disposing of the application for allowing the additional evidence and that permitting the additional evidence at the appellate stage amounts to filling up the lacuna in the evidence of the plaintiff at the stage of the appeal and no case was made out by the other side that such evidence was not out of reach and knowledge of the plaintiff or would not be produced after exercise of due diligence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. have not been misused and the documents were genuine and that the first appellate court exercised its discretion as well as its jurisdiction properly in the interest of justice. 5. I have carefully perused the impugned order and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the learned court committed an error in not properly appreciating the domain laid down in Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. and the broad principles on which the additional evidence has to be allowed at the stage of appeal. The learned court as it appears from the impugned order has not stated that the evidence already on record was appreciated at the hearing and after hearing and scanning the evidence, the court found itself in the situation where the judgment could not be pronounced but with the aid of additional evidence which was permitted to be placed on record. The learned court as it appears from the impugned order has not stated that the evidence already on record was appreciated at the hearing and after hearing and scanning the evidence, the court found itself in the situation where the judgment could not be pronounced but with the aid of additional evidence which was permitted to be placed on record. Where a party desiring to place additional evidence on record makes about no explanation for not producing it in the trial court or did not realise the importance of the document during the trial nor could make out a case within the expression "other substantial cause", the prayer should be declined. The requirement of the appellate. Court under the rule is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect is apparent on the examination of the evidence. The requirement is ultimately of the court and that is to be arrived after appreciating the evidence already existing on the record. I am supported in this view with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others, AIR 1951 SC 193 ; K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and others, AIR 1963 SC 1526 ; and Sunder Lal and Son v. Bharat Handicrafts Private Ltd., AIR 1968 SC 406 . 6. The learned court in the order under revision has no where stated that the evidence already on the record was appreciated. The court further no where holds in the order that the evidence which was permitted to be placed on the record by way of additional evidence was the requirement of the court and that the court required that evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment. Sub-clause (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. reads: "The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if- 7. The words appearing in this provision have to be given a meaning for the purpose they are designed for. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case falling in any of the sub-clauses of this provision. The words appearing in this provision have to be given a meaning for the purpose they are designed for. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case falling in any of the sub-clauses of this provision. The other citations pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be discussed as the law on the subject stands well settled by the hon'ble Supreme Court and particularly the view I am taking in this case. Merely because a party dis covered the document sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence is also not a ground for allowing the additional evidence. 9. The revision petition consequently succeeds. The order passed by the learned appellate court allowing the additional evidence to be placed on record is set aside. The documents placed on record in sequence of the impugned order would be taken out from the record and where after the learned appellate court would proceed to dispose of the appeal according to law. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has prayed that he may be granted permission to bring out a new application for additional evidence so as to bring it within the frame work of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. He can do so, if permitted by law and in that situation the learned court on the application being made shall examine it and dispose it of as per the settled law and procedure in this respect. 11. The revision petition is allowed as indicated above.Revision allowed. *******