Order Heard. 2. Challenge, in this writ application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.2.2007, passed in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2004 by the 2nd Additional District Judge. Jamshedpur, whereby the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for adducing additional evidence in the Appeal, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., has been rejected. 3. Facts of the petitioner's case, stated briefly, are as follows:- The petitioner/plaintiff filed a Title Suit vide Title Suit No. 13 of 2000 before the Court of Munsif at Ghatshila for a decree for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, besides confirmation of possession and alternatively, for recovery of possession. His claim was based primarily on a Sale Deed purportedly executed in his favour by one Badal Dolai and which was claimed to have been registered on 3.6.1998 before the Sub-Registrar, Jamshedpur. The Respondent No. 2 being the defendant No.1, had contested the claim of the plaintiff and disputed the Sale Deed as not being a genuine and bona fide document, on the ground that the purported executant Badal Dolai had died on 7.1.1986 and hence was not alive to execute any such document on 3.6.1998. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court had framed several issues. The relevant issue for the purpose of adjudication of the present case is the Issue No. (g) as to whether the plaintiff's alleged Sale Deed is valid, legal and binding. While the plaintiff in support of his case had adduced the Sale Deed dated3.6.1998 in evidence, the defendant in his turn, had produced alongwith his written statements, the Death Certificate, issued by the Sub-Registrar of Birth and Death, Dist-Midnapur, West Bengal to the effect that the said Badal Dolai, S/o late Kartick Dolai, Male, aged about 68 years, a resident of Village Taradiha, P.O.-Petbind, Dist.-Midnapore, West Bengal, had died on 7.11.1986 at Tapsia P.H.C. Relying upon the Death Certificate and upon considering the fact that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of the Certificate, the trial court recorded its finding on the aforesaid issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff and on this ground, the suit was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, the plaintiff/petitioner filed his appeal before the First Appellate Court. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, the plaintiff/petitioner filed his appeal before the First Appellate Court. In the appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., praying for allowing him to adduce further additional evidence, and for issuance of summons to the concerned authorities of the Tapsiya P.H.C. for production of the relevant Registers, on the ground that the appellant had subsequently detected upon his own investigation that the Death Certificate produced and relied upon by the defendant, was in fact a forged and fake document and that on the basis of such document, the defendant had misled the trial court. The appellants' prayer for allowing him to adduce evidence was hotly contested by the defendant/Respondent. The appellate Court upon hearing the parties and after considering the materials available on record, rejected the appellant's prayer on the ground that the appellant has not made out any ground within the purview of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C. P .C. for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage. 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the appellate court without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the explanations offered by the petitioner that in spite of exercising due diligence, he could not gain knowledge of the fact that the Death Certificate produced by the defendant was a fake and forged document and such fact could be ascertained by the plaintiff only after the decree was finally passed by the trial court, and upon verification of the records of the Hospital concerned. Learned counsel argues that the court below ought to have considered that the evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner would not only support the case of the petitioner/plaintiff regarding the genuineness of the Sale Deed on which the plaintiff has based support for the reliefs claimed in the suit but would also have enabled to render substantial justice. 5. The Respondent No. 2 has contested the petitioner's claim by filing his counter affidavit and offering support to the impugned order of the court below. 6. 5. The Respondent No. 2 has contested the petitioner's claim by filing his counter affidavit and offering support to the impugned order of the court below. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as also a copy of the judgment and the decree passed by the trial court in the Title Suit, it appears that the petitioner has sought to raise a new plea on the basis of further investigation of facts and in order to find support to such new plea, he has sought to obtain additional evidence at the appellate stage. 7. Before the trial court, the defendant in his written statement, had categorically declared that the purported executants of the Sale Deed had died way back on 7.11.1986, prior to the alleged execution of the document and had also produced the Death Certificate by way of proof of death of the said deceased. It was open to the plaintiff to rebut the defendant's claim as also the Death Certificate by adducing evidence on his behalf. In the light of the specific pleadings of the defendants if the plaintiff, had reserved any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the Death Certificate, could have, by exercise of due diligence, made enquiries and verification on his own from the concerned Hospital and from the office of the Sub Registrar of the Births and Deaths, which had issued the Death Certificate. As it appears, though the suit was filed in the year 2000 and the written statements of the defendant were received shortly after his appearance in the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner had at least three long years to verify and obtain evidence for disproving the genuineness of the Death Certificate produced by the defendants, till the passing of the judgment and the decree by the trial court in 2004. It appears on the contrary, that the plaintiff/petitioner had never challenged the genuineness of the Death Certificate before the trial court by introducing any such additional pleadings on his behalf. No evidence was adduced by him to rebut the presumption of genuineness of the Death Certificate as issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths. 8. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as follows:" 27. No evidence was adduced by him to rebut the presumption of genuineness of the Death Certificate as issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths. 8. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as follows:" 27. 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) 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 clause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission." 9. It is manifest from the above provision that the parties to the lis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as of course or routine but must satisfy the conditions as specified in sub-clauses (a) and (aa). 10. The learned court below has examined the prayer of the petitioner/appellant in the context of the explanations offered and the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the context of the conditions laid down under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and has recorded its finding that the appellant/plaintiff was allowed adequate opportunity to rebut the evidences produced by the defendant and the appellant has not sought any evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendant before the trial court. The only ground on which the petitioner/appellant has sought for adducing the additional evidence is that the facts sought to be introduced was not within its knowledge before passing of the decree in the suit. The only ground on which the petitioner/appellant has sought for adducing the additional evidence is that the facts sought to be introduced was not within its knowledge before passing of the decree in the suit. As per the provisions of sub-clause (aa) of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., the party seeking to produce additional evidence, has to establish 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. The appellant has not stated that he has exercised due diligence to ascertain as to whether the Death Certificate produced by the defendant was a fake document. In fact, at no point of time, did the plaintiff/petitioner raise any plea that the Death Certificate was a forged document. It is apparent from the above facts that the essential condition on the basis of which additional evidence could be adduced at the appellate stage, has not been fulfilled by the petitioner/appellant. In this view of the matter, the learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for allowing additional evidence to be adduced at the appellate stage. 11. Another aspect, which may also be relevant to note here is that the plea that the Death Certificate produced by the defendant was a fake and forged document, is a plea taken for the first time at the appellate stage, by the plaintiff/appellant, purportedly on the basis of his investigation of facts. The prayer for calling of the Registers from the concerned Hospital as also from the office of the Sub-Registrar of the Births and Deaths is apparently for the purpose of supporting his new plea. Adducing of additional evidence in support of such new plea, cannot be allowed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.