JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri B.C. Pandey, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.07.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.566/2006 "Ram Veer vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. And others", present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. 2. At the appellate stage, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been moved supported by an affidavit. In the said application the prayer which has been made, reads as under: - "For the facts and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit and the grounds of Appeal, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to order for taking the Annexures no.5 .and Annexure no.6, the verification report from Transport Authorities in regard to the Route Permit of the offending Bus, in the interest of Justice." 3. Further, in support of the application under Order 41 Rule 27, the facts is stated in the affidavit are quoted hereinbelow : - "That the deponent is posted as Manger in the T.P. HUB of the Appellant Company and is well conversant with the facts of the case and is authorized to swear and state on oath on behalf of Appellant. That Driving trial before M.A.C.T., the U.P.S.R.T.C., the owner of the offending bus failed to file the valid and effective Route Permit at the time of accident. That the Counsel of the company also due to some misunderstanding failed to file the verification report from the Transport authorities of the bus. That non filing of the verification report of the Transport Authorities was not intentional and deliberate by the appellant company. That in the interest of justice, the Annexure No.5 and Annexure No.6 be taken on the record of the Appeal." 4. Accordingly, in view of the said facts, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been pressed by learned counsel for appellant/Sri B.C. Pandey. Moreover, in this regard he has placed reliance of Order 47 Rule 27 (1)(aa) CPC, and submitted that in view of the said provision, the application should be allowed. 5. Accordingly, in view of the said facts, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been pressed by learned counsel for appellant/Sri B.C. Pandey. Moreover, in this regard he has placed reliance of Order 47 Rule 27 (1)(aa) CPC, and submitted that in view of the said provision, the application should be allowed. 5. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Order 41 Rule 27(1) CPC which on reproduction reads as under: - "Rule 27- Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court-- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not been titled 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." 6. On plain reading of Sub-rule (1)(aa) of Order 41 rule 27, the position which emerges out is that when application is made at a late stage to put in evidence res moviter ad notitiant preventa, one of the primary duties of the applicant is to show that it was owing to no want of diligence on his part that the matter/evidence was not discovered before, so he was not able to file the same before the court below and if a appellant falls to satisfy the said condition his application to produce the same at a belated stage is liable to be rejected. 7. 7. The party seeking to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary additional evidence, is to establish that notwithstanding to exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after 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 and in order to bring the additional evidence on record, the appellant should establish that he made application to get the certified copies prior to the disposal of the suit, and they were not available and adjournment was refused by the Court. Where it is not stated that the trial court refused to admit the documents or that the documents were not available at the time of trial, they cannot be admitted in the appellate court to fill up the gaps in the evidence or to better the case of the appellant. 8. Before a party is allowed to produce additional evidence he has to establish that the evidence was not in existence, 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. 9. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is clearly not intend to allow a litigant who had been unsuccessful in the lower court to patch up the weak parts of his case and to fill up the omission in appeal. (See. Arjan Vs. Kartar, 1951 SCR 258 , Parsotim Thakur and others Vs. Lal Mohan and others, AIR 1931 P.C. 143 ). 10. Further, the application moved by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not in accordance with the procedure provided for moving the same under law. The said fact has been admitted by learned counsel for appellant, Sri B.C. Pandey. 11. Thus, keeping in view the said facts present application is dismissed.