JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—This writ petition has been filed against an order dated 26.2.1996 passed by the Appellate Court on an application made by the petitioner under Order XLI, Rule 27 (aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants which was registered as Suit No.1336 of 1984, Gobardhan Prasad v. Ram Pratap Pandey seeking relief that the defendant respondent be restrained from making any unauthorized construction of the land of the plaintiff and further for demolition of unauthorized construction made during the pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed against the petitioner on 12.10.94. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.10.94, the petitioner filed a Civil Appeal No.103 of 1994. It is during the appeal that the petitioner filed his application under Order XLI Rule 27 (aa) of the C.P.C. by which he sought to adduce additional evidence. 4. In this application, the petitioner disclosed that upon receiving legal advise, he was seeking to file additional evidence which was in the shape of an order passed in another suit in which another Court has held that the land of the defendant had “Rasta or not” and after making an inspection, a copy of the decree of Suit No.110 of 1943 was procured by the plaintiff petitioner and, therefore, he sought to file it as additional evidence. 5. I quote Order XLI Rule 27 (aa) for facility of reference : "(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" 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the Court below is vitiated because the Court below failed to see that the petitioner had moved its application to adduce additional evidence by exercise of due diligence and the said evidence was not within its knowledge prior to the moving of the application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was brought to the notice of the court below that the Plaintiff applicant had no knowledge of the additional evidence which it had sought to produce at the appellate stage. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was brought to the notice of the court below that the Plaintiff applicant had no knowledge of the additional evidence which it had sought to produce at the appellate stage. 8. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 2004(5) A.W.C. 4199 (SC) in the case of Jayaramdas and Sons v. Mirza Rafatullah Baig (S.C.) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the party to lead additional evidence on account of the fact that the additional evidence which was sought to be adduced was already there in the shape of some documents but the fresh set of documents which was sought to be adduced as additional evidence contained a variance and it was in those circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted that the additional evidence be adduced. 9. The list is revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest this matter. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the record of the case including the application itself moved by the petitioner to adduce additional evidence. The application moved by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 (aa) disclosed at two places that it has been moved on the basis of legal advise. It contains no specific averments as to when the petitioner gained knowledge of the fact that there was a decree in another suit, which could be produced as additional evidence. 11. The simple statement in the application is that it was being made on the basis of additional evidence and that the applicant had no knowledge of the decree passed in Suit No.110 of 1943. 12. On a perusal of Order XLI, Rule 27 (aa), it is clear that the said provision is an exclusion to ordinary rule of admitting additional evidence in civil cases. 13. The discretion under Order XLI, Rule 27 (aa) granted to the Court to pass an order in favour of the party seeking such exercise as a result of re-opening the trial, which had otherwise stood concluded. Therefore, exercise under the said provision has to be made with due care and caution and cannot be exercised just for the asking. 14. The discretion under Order XLI, Rule 27 (aa) granted to the Court to pass an order in favour of the party seeking such exercise as a result of re-opening the trial, which had otherwise stood concluded. Therefore, exercise under the said provision has to be made with due care and caution and cannot be exercised just for the asking. 14. In the present case also, it was obligatory on the part of the applicant petitioner to set out such necessary and specific details, which would enable the Court to pass an order under Order XLI, Rule 27 (aa). 15. I have perused the order of the Court below also, minutely, where the Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the applicant has not been able to make-out case for grant of relief under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 (aa) of the C.P.C. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the appeal is still pending and has not been decided on account of the stay order granted by this Court which is filed against an interlocutory order. Long years have passed. The appeal itself ought to be decided. 17. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the petitioner was not able to make-out a case for grant of relief under Order XLI, Rule 27 (aa) of the C.P.C. and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority on 26.2.96 requires no interference by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. The impugned order dated 26.6.96 is confirmed. The writ petition is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. 19. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that the appeal should be decided expeditiously. This prayer of the petitioner is accepted and I direct the Appellate Court to re-open the matter immediately and give an expeditious hearing of the petitioner. Petition Dismissed. —————