Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 23.6.2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 109/96, the 2nd Additional District Judge, Banka has rejected a petition filed on behalf of the appellants-petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 27 and under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure after observing that since he had not heard full arguments of the Title Appeal so he does not require those documents for any substantial cause or to pronounce judgment. 3. The provision of Order XLI, Rule 27 contemplated three broad situations where additional evidence may be permitted by the appellate court. The case at hand falls under the category (b) of Rule 27(1) which vests entire discretion in the appellate court which can require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment; or for any other substantial cause. In view of such provision a party can only place the relevant materia! for consideration of the appellate court and it is for the court to consider whether additional evidence is required by it or not. The requirement of such additional evidence can be fully appreciated only after hearing full at guments and that view has been expressed by the learned court below. Hence, the impugned order requires no interference. 4. This revision application is, therefore, dismissed. 5. It goes without saying that the facts mentioned in the petition under Older XLI, Rule 27 and under Sec. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be kept in mind by the learned court below propriate order shall be passed in respect to said prayer after hearing full arguments of the parties in title appeal and such request may be disposed of by a separate order or be dealt with in final judgment to be passed in the appeal itself.