JUDGMENT This is Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1989 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Mandleshwar, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 25-A/1989, in affirmance of the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1983, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Barwaha, in Civil Original Suit No. 49-A/1983, decreeing suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for declaration and injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands. This appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in not considering and deciding the appellants application under Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC while deciding the appeal on merits and consequently the judgment is vitiated in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (2) What is the legal effect of not impleading the State of M.P. as party in the first appeal in the suit for declaration in respect of agricultural lands ? Taking the first question first, it is not disputed that the appellants during the pendency of the appeal have made two applications; one under Order XLI Rule 27 for production of additional evidence and second under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in their written statement. The appellate Court had directed and rightly that these applications shall be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. However, no reference is made in the judgment impugned regarding any of these applications. Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC authorises the appellate Court to allow additional evidence or document to be produced if any of the conditions specified in clause (a), (aa) or (b) is satisfied. It is well settled that an application for additional evidence under Rule 27 has to be, considered along with hearing of the appeal on merits. The reason is obvious. Additional evidence can be admitted only when the appellate Court requires it i.e. finds it needful to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The legitimate occasion for exercise of this discretion can arise only when on an examination of the evidence as it stands the Court finds that such an additional evidence or document is required to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The legitimate occasion for exercise of this discretion can arise only when on an examination of the evidence as it stands the Court finds that such an additional evidence or document is required to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. In the instant case, it was thus obligatory on the Court below to have considered the prayer of the appellants for additional evidence in the light of the guidelines provided under Rule 27 and taking into consideration merits or demerits of the appeal. Omission to pass any order on the application is clearly an instance of non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in the first appellate Court below and which has deprived the appellants their right to have considered their prayer for additional evidence and decided by the appellate Court below. Non-consideration thus vitiates the judgment passed in appeal and the same is therefore liable to be set-aside on this count alone. The same reasoning applies as to the non-consideration of application made under Order VI R. 17 of CPC for amendment. It is well settled that the Court of appeal may also in proper cases allow amendment if the same is found necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The necessity as envisaged under Rule 17 of Order VI can also be judged only when the application for amendment is considered in the context of the merits of the appeal. The Court below, therefore, erred in not considering the application while deciding the appeal. As regards the second question, Rule 3B of Order I of CPC inserted by the M.P. Amendment of 1984 makes it mandatory to implead State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the defendants or non-applicants or respondents as the case may be in every suit or proceeding for declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief - Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3-B made the rule applicable even to a pending suit or other proceeding. The appeal, in the instant case, was filed on 6.4.1983 and it was pending when the M.P. Amendment was made enforceable (14.8.1984). This mandatory provision has not been complied with in the instant case and on this count also the decree passed in first appeal is vitiated. The appeal, in the instant case, was filed on 6.4.1983 and it was pending when the M.P. Amendment was made enforceable (14.8.1984). This mandatory provision has not been complied with in the instant case and on this count also the decree passed in first appeal is vitiated. In the result, I allow the appeal, set-aside the judgment and decree passed in first appeal and remand the case back to' the first appellate Court below with the direction that it shall restore the appeal to its original number, implead State of Madhya Pradesh as party respondent in the appeal, consider the appellants applications under Order XLI Rule 27 and Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and decide the same along with the appeal on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 5.10.1998. The Court is also directed to make an endeavour to decide the appeal at the earliest say within 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. No order is made as to the costs of this appeal.