JUDGMENT : - Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral). Challenge herein is to the order Annexure P-5, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, registered as CMA No.167-6 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No.30/13 of 2013, whereby the application has been dismissed and the prayer to produce allegedly additional evidence has been declined. 2. In order to decide the fate of this petition provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure need to be referred to, which 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 cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.” 3. It is seen that the additional evidence under the provisions ibid can be allowed to be produced in case the trial Court has refused to admit the same, though ought to have been admitted, or the party seeking to produce the additional evidence failed to produce the same during the course of trial being not within his/her knowledge and the appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be produced to pronounce the judgment. 4. The present is case where the petitioner-defendant in the trial Court was allowed six opportunities to produce the evidence. He, however, failed to produce the same. Therefore, his evidence was ordered to be closed by the order of the Court meaning thereby that he has not produced any evidence in support of the case set out in the written statement. The present is case where the petitioner-defendant in the trial Court was allowed six opportunities to produce the evidence. He, however, failed to produce the same. Therefore, his evidence was ordered to be closed by the order of the Court meaning thereby that he has not produced any evidence in support of the case set out in the written statement. The present, therefore, is not a case for producing additional evidence and rather under the garb of additional evidence the petitioner-appellant in the lower appellate Court has sought the permission to produce the entire evidence in his defence. The remedy available to him was to have challenged the order whereby learned trial Court has ordered to close his evidence in an appropriate proceedings. He is even at liberty to raise the closure of his evidence as one of the grounds in the appeal. It is pointed out by learned Counsel on both sides that the closure of the evidence by the trial Court has been raised as one of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal filed before the lower appellate Court. The petitioner, therefore, is at liberty to urge the grounds so raised during the course of arguments in the appeal and in case petitioner-appellant to persuade the lower appellate Court, may get an opportunity to produce the evidence. However, so far as this application is concerned in the given circumstance as he has not produced the evidence at all, there is no question of allowing him to produce the additional evidence. This petition being without any merit, is, therefore, dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.