ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing and set aside the order dated 21.5.2012 passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 10/12 by the learned court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, whereby the learned court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Title (Eviction) Suit No. 35/04 was filed by the respondent plaintiff against the sole defendant Karunamoy Choudhary dated 13.7.04 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the judgment and order dated 5th Jan. 2012. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said suit, the defendant, Karunamoy Choudhary died in the year 2008 and the substitution petition with regard to substitution of his legal heirs was allowed on 6th Feb. 2009 and thereafter the legal heirs of the deceased were substituted. It is further submitted that the certain documents were produced by the deceased father when he was contesting the suit and thereafter, the petitioner could not produce the relevant documents on record as they were not aware of the certain documents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, letter sent by the defendant Karunamoy Choudhary addressed to the plaintiff wherein, the deceased father has stated that he is an old man and physically unfit to face the problem and therefore, along with the letter, he has sent Rs. 1,800/-as monthly rent of last six months i.e. from January 2004 to June 2004 by way of money Order and the said letter has been exhibited as Ext. 5. Likewise, Ext. 5A is also a postal certificate of letter dated 3.8.04 by which he has also sent the rent for the month of July 2004 @ Rs. 300/-and Exts. 6 to 6/P are the rent receipts. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite these evidences on record, the learned court below passed a judgment and order in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants were defaulter in making the payment of requisite rent for the month of January 2004 to June 2004. 300/-and Exts. 6 to 6/P are the rent receipts. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite these evidences on record, the learned court below passed a judgment and order in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants were defaulter in making the payment of requisite rent for the month of January 2004 to June 2004. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in Ext.-5 and 5A, specific averments were made by the original defendant that the requisite amount of rent has been sent by money order, however, the court passed judgment and decree on the ground of default in making payment of rent of for the period from January 2004 to June 2004. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order and sought permission to produce the additional evidence of money order receipt/coupon rent receipts possess by them. It is further submitted that the present petitioners were not aware about the non production of relevant material documents including the money orders sent to the respondent plaintiff by their father. However, the learned appellate court rejected the prayer made by the present petitioner for allowing them to additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has referred to and relied upon the judgments reported in 2010(2) CLJ 309 (S.C.) and another judgment reported in 2008(3) JCR 454 and submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case squarely covered by the said judgments and therefore, the order passed by the learned court below with regard to rejection of application for the production of additional evidence may be quashed and set aside and the present petitioner may be given an opportunity to produce the additional evidence at the appellate stage. 4. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents tired to justify the order passed by the learned court below and submitted that the present petitioner wants to delay the proceedings and therefore, such an application has been made before the appellate stage. It is further submitted that the present petitioner has been substituted in the year 2009 in Title Eviction suit and therefore, there was sufficient opportunity available with them to produce the relevant evidence before the trial court. It is further submitted that the present petitioner has been substituted in the year 2009 in Title Eviction suit and therefore, there was sufficient opportunity available with them to produce the relevant evidence before the trial court. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner has produced Ext.5 as well as other documents before the trial court and he could not produce the relevant documents if possessed by him at the time of trial before issues were framed. But no such documents were produced by him and therefore now it is not permissible to produce such documents at the appellate stage. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the court below after careful consideration of the issues involved in the matter rejected the application filed by the petitioner regarding production of the additional evidence at the appellate stage. It is lastly submitted that the present petition has no merit, and therefore, it may be rejected. 5. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned court below, it appears that the court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for production of additional evidence at the appellate stage. The facts and circumstances of the present case are peculiar in nature and the same were required to be considered by the Court below. The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly indicates that the Title Eviction Suit No. 35/04 was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff against the defendant Karunamoy Choudhary, who died during the pendency of the suit in the year 2008 and thereafter, the present petitioners being legal heir were substituted as party defendant. It appears that the father despite his old aged and health constraints produced certain documents which were available with him in the said suit and the said documents have been exhibited as described in the judgment of Title Eviction Suit No. 35/04. It appears that sofas as the payment of monthly rent from January 2004 to June 2004 is concerned, the letter addressed to the plaintiff has been exhibited vide Annexure-5 and in the said letter, it was categorically mentioned by the father of the petitioner that due to his old age and health constraint, he was not in a position to defend the suit effectively and, therefore, along with the said letter, he has sent Rs. 1,800./-as monthly rent for last six months i.e. from January 2004 to June 2004 by the money Order. It also appears that Ext. 5A is also letter sent under Postal Certificate dated 3.8.04 written by the original defendant to the plaintiff, by which, he has sent the rent for the month of July, 2004 by Money order @ Rs. 300/- per month. Exts. 6 to 6/P are the rent receipts. Thus it appears that by letters Ext. 5 and 5A, intimation regarding payment through money order for the due rent was sent to the plaintiff. From perusal of the judgment and decree passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 35/04, it appears that the said judgment is mainly delivered on the basis of non payment of rent from the month of January 2004 to June 2004, as the defendant did not produced the money order coupons. Therefore, at the appellate stage, the present petitioners prayed before the court below to allow them to produce the relevant documents/evidence available with him with regard to money orders, which were sent by the deceased father. Since the present petitioners were substituted at a stage in the suit proceeding and till then their father was handing this matter, they were not aware about the same and therefore, they sought permission for production of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Despite this position and and specific averments made in the letter of Ext. 5 and 5A, the court below rejected the request made by the petitioner for production of additional evidence. I have perused the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2008(3) JCR 454 . Para 8 and 9 of the said judgment read as under: “8. So far scope and application of order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is manifestly clear from the provisions that additional evidence can be allowed if the applicant satisfies the court about the grounds mentioned therein. In addition to that, additional evidence can also be allowed for any other substantial cause which will include the question of doing due, proper and substantial justice. 9. In the instant case, since the beginning, the defendants seriously disputed the claim of ownership of the suit property on the ground that the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff is null and void. 9. In the instant case, since the beginning, the defendants seriously disputed the claim of ownership of the suit property on the ground that the sale deed obtained by the plaintiff is null and void. When the eviction appeal was pending, the suit filed by petitioner was eventually decreed in appeal and the sale deed in question was declared null and void. The judgment and decree passed in the said suit. In my opinion, can be allowed as an additional evidence for effective determination of the question raised in this suit and for doing substantial justice. The court of appeal below has not appreciated the case from this angle. The appellate court will be able to pronounce judgment and to do substantial justice only after taking into consideration the additional evidence which the petitioner sought to adduce, I.e. judgment and decree passed in appeal wherein the sale deed on the basis of which the plaintiff-respondent claims title and filed eviction suit, was declared null and void. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.” From perusal of the above para of the judgment, it appears that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is applicable to he facts of the present case. In view of the said judgment, the additional evidence can also be allowed for any other substantial cause which will include the question of doing due, proper and substantial justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon another judgment reported in 2010 (2) Civil LJ 309, which is also relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case. Paragraph 8 of said judgments reads as under; “8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the documents which were sought to be produced by the appellants formed the very basis of the claim made by the appellants in the civil suit. Their consideration by the Court was necessary for just decision of the case. The original plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the civil Suit. The documents were thereafter sought to be brought on record at the earliest opportunity available to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Therefore, it could not be said that the appellants had not given any reason as to why the documents had not been produced in the trial court. The documents were thereafter sought to be brought on record at the earliest opportunity available to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Therefore, it could not be said that the appellants had not given any reason as to why the documents had not been produced in the trial court. It appears that the dismissal of the suit by the trial court for non production of evidence by the plaintiff was mechanically affirmed by the appellate court. It further appears that none of the issues have been decided by any of the courts below on merits. All decisions have proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff/appellants have failed to produce evidence in support of their claim. The application was not examined keeping in view the principles laid down in order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. The documents sought to be produced are judicial orders declaring the ownership rights of the appellants. That have a crucial bearing on the merits of the claim put forward by the appellants. It was pleaded by the appellants that original plaintiff having died during the pendency of the Civil suit the documents could not be brought on record as they were not aware of the others. A prayer was duly made before the appellate court which was repeated before the High Court for remanding the matter with an opportunity to adduce the additional evidence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of opinion that the appellate court as also the High Court erred in law in not accepting the application for additional evidence and not remanding the matter back to the trial court.” 7. In view of the principle enumerated in the aforesaid two judgments as well as in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this court is of the view that the learned court below has not properly appreciated and considered the issues with regard to production of additional evidence at the appellate stage and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned 5. order dated 21.5.2012 passed in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 10/2012 by the learned Court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petitioner are permitted to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage in the interest of justice. 8. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly. Petition dismissed.