D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decree, dated 9-7-2002, passed by the learned Senior civil Judge, Markapur, dismissing the application in 1a No. 876 of 1997 in AS no. 24 of 1995. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs who were unsuccessful before the trial Court filed an application in IA No. 876 of 1997 under order 47 Rule 27 CPC to receive certain documents as additional evidence before the lower Appellate Court while hearing and adjudicating the appeal. The said application was dismissed. Hence, the present Civil revision Petition is filed. ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. ( 5 ) THE facts in brief are that OS no. 169 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court through judgment and decree, dated 16-8-1995. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, an appeal in AS No. 24 of 1995 was preferred by the plaintiffs. Initially, the plaintiffs filed an application in IA No. 772 of 1995 to receive certain documents as additional evidence, which is still pending. Subsequently, another application in IA no. 876 of 1997 was filed for the same purpose i. e. , to receive certain documents as additional evidence and the Lower Appellate court through order, dated 9-7-2002, dismissed the same mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs had the knowledge of documents and proper care was not taken to produce the same before the trial Court and the reasons offered in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, did not stand to the test laid down under clause (a) (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the dismissing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 at the threshold amounts to prejudging the issue in the appeal. The relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence before the Lower Appellate Court have to be decided at the time of hearing the appeal. The relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence before the Lower Appellate Court have to be decided at the time of hearing the appeal. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs relies on a decision of the Apex Court in State of rajasthan v. T. N. Sahani, (2001) 10 SCC 618 , wherein their Lordships held as follows : "it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose the amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27 (b) cpc can be invoked. So, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, would be inappropriate. " ( 7 ) TO test the applicability of the above principle laid down by the Apex Court, it is necessary to look into the provisions of order 41 Rule 27, to the extent relevant, which is as under : (1 ). . . . . . " ( 7 ) TO test the applicability of the above principle laid down by the Apex Court, it is necessary to look into the provisions of order 41 Rule 27, to the extent relevant, which is as under : (1 ). . . . . . (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence, which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause," ( 8 ) FROM a reading of the above provision, it is clear that Order 41 Rule 27 envisages 3 contingencies; firstly that the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence should have been refused for admission by the trial Court; secondly that the party seeking to produce additional evidence shall establish that despite his due diligence was not within his knowledge or the same could not be produced despite his due diligence at the time when the decree was passed by the trial Court and thirdly that when the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment, or for any other substantial cause. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as the first contingency is concerned, it is not present in the instant case inasmuch as it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the documents sought to be produced before the Lower Appellate Court were already refused by the trial Court for admission. ( 10 ) CLAUSE (b) of Rule 27 postulates that when the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment, or for any other substantial cause. ( 11 ) CLAUSE (aa) of Rule 27 requires a special attention. ( 10 ) CLAUSE (b) of Rule 27 postulates that when the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment, or for any other substantial cause. ( 11 ) CLAUSE (aa) of Rule 27 requires a special attention. It postulates that the party seeking to produce additional evidence shall establish that despite his due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or the same could not be produced despite his due diligence at the time when the decree was passed by the Trial Court. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, under clause (aa) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 27, the jurisdiction of the lower Appellate Court is to the extent of being satisfied with the explanation offered by the plaintiffs in not filing the said documents before the Trial Court, which passed the decree. In other words, a satisfactory explanation is expected to be forthcoming from the plaintiffs to the effect that in spite of their best efforts and due diligence, such an additional evidence, which was in their knowledge, could not be produced. ( 13 ) IN the instant case, a perusal of the affidavit, filed in support of the application, would reveal that the plaintiffs could not produce such documents due to lack of legal knowledge and also due to lack of proper advice. It was further stated in the said affidavit that at the time of filing of appeal, they were instructed to file other documents, which are relevant for effective disposal of the appeal. ( 14 ) FROM the above, it is clear that the plaintiffs had the knowledge about the existence of the said documents, which they ought to have filed before the trial Court. Though they had the knowledge of the same, even after filing of the appeal also, the explanation offered by them in not filing such documents sought to be received as additional evidence was that lack of legal knowledge and lack of proper advise. In my view, lack of legal knowledge and proper advise cannot be a ground for not producing certain documents sought to be received as additional evidence either before the Trial Court or at the time of filing of the appeal. In other words, the parties are not expected to improve their case stagewise and fill up the gaps. In my view, lack of legal knowledge and proper advise cannot be a ground for not producing certain documents sought to be received as additional evidence either before the Trial Court or at the time of filing of the appeal. In other words, the parties are not expected to improve their case stagewise and fill up the gaps. ( 15 ) IN the said decision of the Apex court (supra), the facts are different from the facts of case on hand. It was a case where two applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were filed and the same were dismissed. Further, while dealing with the aspect of order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the Apex Court laid down the principle as extracted above. ( 16 ) IT is seen, from the observations made by their Lordships of the Apex Court in the said decision (supra) that the issue involved was as regards the application of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of order 41 CPC. As already pointed out, clause (b) of sub-rule (1) deals with the power of the Court, which may require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to come to a just conclusion. That power is exclusively within the domain of the Appellate Court. ( 17 ) BUT it is to be noted that satisfaction of the conditions of clause (aa) is essential pre-requisite to clause (b) of sub-rule (1), which deals with the power of the Appellate court to permit any document to be produced or any witness to be examined. The party, which seeks production of any additional evidence, shall have to necessarily explain the conditions incorporated in clause (aa ). If those conditions are not satisfied, the question of exercising the jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 CPC does not arise. Hence, the unexceptionable principle laid down by the Apex Court and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs is not applicable to the present case in the light of the facts setforth above. If those conditions are not satisfied, the question of exercising the jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 CPC does not arise. Hence, the unexceptionable principle laid down by the Apex Court and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs is not applicable to the present case in the light of the facts setforth above. ( 18 ) FURTHER more, the party, which seeks production of any document as additional evidence, cannot as a matter of right require the Appellate Court to receive such documents as additional evidence on record nor there is any such obligation on the part of the Appellate Court to receive the same unless and until the conditions envisaged under clause (a) or (aa) of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 CPC are not satisfied. ( 19 ) IF such conditions are satisfied and if the Appellate Court deems it fit and proper to receive such documents as additional evidence, then only the question of appreciation of such evidence would arise subject to necessity for adjudication of the appeal. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, as already noticed, in the affidavit, filed in support of the application before the Lower Appellate court, the reasons shown by the plaintiffs for not producing such documents as additional evidence before the Trial Court or along with the appeal before the Appellate court are not satisfactory. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the Lower appellate Court had rightly rejected the present application filed by the plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality or irregularity much less jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails is liable to be dismissed. ( 21 ) IN the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs.