Abhinava Upadhya, J.;- Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. By means of this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the order of the appellate court by which for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid document sought to be admitted in evidence and the additional evidence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC postulates for admission of additional evidence at the behest of the parties of the suit only under two conditions. Firstly, if the said document were asked to be admitted as evidence before the trial court and the trial court has refused to accept the same, such document can be presented under Order 41 Rule 27-A of the CPC. Second condition is that where the parties seeking to produce additional evidence is able to establish that even with due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge. In the present case, these two conditions are not available and, therefore, in my view, the court below has rightly rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27CPC. There is no merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.