L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 12-08-2004, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, narayanpet, in I. A. No. 159 of 2003 in A. S. No. 9 of 2003. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. 31 of 1999 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of houses bearing Nos. 18-106 to 110 of Kosgi village, Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner pleaded the necessary ingredients as to title and possession, in respect of all items of the suit schedule property. The respondents, on the other hand, pleaded their own independent title and possession. After trial, the suit was decreed insofar as it relates to house Nos. 18-106 to 109, but was dismissed in relation to house No. 18-110. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed A. S. No. 9 of 2003, aggrieved by the decree insofar as it denied part of the relief to her. She also filed I. A. No. 159 of 2003, under Order 41 Rule 27 c. P. C. , seeking permission of the Court to file certain documents as additional evidence. These documents included the permission obtained by her father to construct the house bearing No. 18-110, certain tax receipts, and an order passed by the District Panchayat Officer restoring her name in the panchayat records, in relation to that property. The application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the documents were very much with the petitioner when the trial of the suit was in progress, and that she cannot be permitted to file those documents at this stage. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the I. A. on recording a finding that sufficient cause, as required under Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C. , was not shown by the petitioner. ( 4 ) SRI K. Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the set of documents, which are sought to be filed now, were misplaced and they could not be filed during the trial of the suit. He submits that the petitioner being a lady from a village is not conversant with the court procedure and that she had to rely upon other persons in this regard. He submits that the petitioner being a lady from a village is not conversant with the court procedure and that she had to rely upon other persons in this regard. ( 5 ) SRI Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that receiving of additional evidence at the appellate stage, is not a matter of course, and the party intending to adduce evidence at that stage, has to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that even after exercising due diligence, such evidence could not be adduced before the decree came to be passed. He submits that except making a bald statement that the documents were misplaced, the petitioner did not state any reason to satisfy the Court as the circumstances that prevented her from filing the same before the trial Court. ( 6 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the decree insofar as part of the relief claimed in the suit was denied to her. At the stage of appeal, she filed an application to receive certain documents as additional evidence. The reason pleaded by her was that the said documents were misplaced. The Appellate Court took the view that the reason pleaded by the petitioner is not satisfactory and that she failed to make out a case, as contemplated under Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C. ( 7 ) IT is true that additional evidence cannot be received at the stage of appeal, as a matter of course. The parties are required to plead and prove their cases at the trial. Receiving of additional evidence at a subsequent stage, will have the effect of taking other party by surprise and the appellate Court may have to undertake adjudication of the matter, not confining itself to the evidence and material that was available before the trial Court. Such an eventuality will certainly result in prejudice to the other party. The various Clauses, particularly Clause (aa), of Rule 27 of order 41 C. P. C. , makes it incumbent upon the party proposing to adduce additional evidence to satisfy the Court, as to the circumstances that prevented it from adducing such evidence, during the course of trial. However, by its very nature, satisfaction is subjective. It is too difficult to prescribe fixed parameters for this purpose. However, by its very nature, satisfaction is subjective. It is too difficult to prescribe fixed parameters for this purpose. The circumstances differ from case to case and it cannot be stated with mathematical precision as to when the additional evidence can be received in appeal, and when not. However, the broad principles are to be kept in mind. ( 8 ) THE lower Appellate Court discussed the principle in general, with reference to certain judgments rendered by trial Court, and in fact no exception can be taken to its approach. Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with this very issue in its judgment in jayaramdas and Sons v. Mirza Rafatullah baig. In that case also, the reasons furnished by the party intending to adduce additional evidence were very scanty. A reading of the judgment of the Supreme court discloses that a distinction needs to be maintained, as to the nature of documents, in the context of receiving as additional evidence. The relevant paragraph reads as under:"as already pointed out both the sets of documents are certified copies of public documents. The appellants would not ordinarily suspect or doubt the documents where the certified copies of public documents were secured from the public officer having the custody of such public documents. It is only when it came to their knowledge that the certified copies were at variance with the originals or were not complete copies that they thought of securing another set of certified copies and then seeking leave of the Court for producing the certified copies obtained. by them as an additional evidence in appellate Court. The case of the appellants for production of additional evidence falls within clause (aa) of sub-rule (1), abovesaid. It would have been better if such ground was set out specifically in the application so that the opposite party could have had an opportunity of meeting the plea and the first Appellate Court could also have had the provisions of clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) in its mind for dealing with the appellants application. However, still we feel that the ends of justice demand the additional evidence being allowed to be produced de hors the deficiency in the application filed by the appellants. " ( 9 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court, substantially, supports the case of the petitioner. However, still we feel that the ends of justice demand the additional evidence being allowed to be produced de hors the deficiency in the application filed by the appellants. " ( 9 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court, substantially, supports the case of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts that the documents sought to be presented as additional evidence are public documents, they cannot be subjected to the same rigour, as in case of other category of documents, in the context of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC. Truth or otherwise thereof has to be dealt with in accordance with the prescribed procedure. This much can be said that the petitioner cannot be said to have been negligent or indifferent in filing those documents during the course of trial. One factor, which weighs in her favour is that she has already placed necessary evidence before the trial Court, in relation to all the items of property, and on the basis of the same, a substantial portion of the relief was granted to her. Since the trial Court rejected the relief in respect of one item of property, the necessity has arisen for her to make out the deficit. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the order under revision is set aside and I. A. No. 159 of 2003 shall stand allowed. Further steps shall be taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure. There shall be no order as to costs.