Order This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23.6.08 passed by the learned 6th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 87 of 2007. 2. The appellant filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 for filing two documents namely, the Drug Licences issued in the years 1975 and 1985. In the application it was alleged that these documents are the public documents and the same could not be filed during the course of final hearing of the suit before the trial court as the document could not be traced. The documents are very essential for the disposal of the appeal and, as such, the said application may be allowed and may be taken on the record as evidence. 3. The said application was contested by the respondents and they stated that these documents were in the knowledge of the appellant and the aforesaid documents were issued in the year 1975 and 1985 but the appellants did not file these documents before the trial court and he has not shown the due diligence in spite of the knowledge of the existence of the documents and in spite of the knowledge of the document he did not file it before the trial court. The respondent prayed to dismiss the application. 4. The learned appellate court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application holding that the documents pertains to the years 1975 and 1985 and these documents were well within the knowledge and as such, the documents cannot be admitted in appeal during hearing of the appeal and the application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, this petition has been preferred. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, Order XLI Rule 27(1 )(aa) runs as under is quoted below: "Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. But if- (a)................................ (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." 5. But if- (a)................................ (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." 5. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the additional evidence can only be taken into account when the parties has shown due diligence in obtaining the documents and it is also be established that these documents were not well within the knowledge and could not, after the exercise of due diligence, could not be produced by him earlier. The plea, which has been taken by the appellant before the appellate court that these documents were not traceable till that time. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the learned counsel for the parties stated that the suit has been filed against the appellant for the eviction of the premises on the ground that the petitioner has trespassed over the said premises and taken possession of the suit premises, the petitioner has taken a plea in his written statement that he is a tenant of the said premises since long and he is in continuous possession. 6. The petitioner has not indicated when these documents had been lost. It is not indicated in the application what efforts were made by him. If the petitioner is the licence holder, he would always keep such licence with him. I am completely in agreement with the findings of the learned court below. 7. I do not find any infirmity in the said order and this writ petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. -