JUDGMENT : Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard Shri I.M. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 7. 2. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.2 to 7, the same is taken on record. 3. The petitioner instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the year 2006 which was dismissed by the learned trial court by means of the judgment dated 28.03.2011. Challenging the said judgment dated 28.03.2011, passed by the learned trial court, a Regular Civil Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner plaintiff which is pending before the learned appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, two applications were moved by the petitioner; (1) application dated 23.04.2014 praying therein that the plaintiff intends to file certain additional evidence in the form of certain documents which may be taken on record and (2) an application praying therein that the appellant-plaintiff be permitted to cross-examine the defendant. Both the applications have been rejected by the learned appellate court by means of the impugned order dated 24.04.2014. It is this order dated 24.04.2014, passed by the learned appellate court below which is subject matter of challenge in these proceedings instituted by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned appellate court below has wrongly rejected both the applications without taking into consideration the relevant provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has emphasised that the learned court below has not returned any finding as to the relevance of the documents which were sought to be produced by the plaintiff as additional evidence and hence in absence of such a finding the order passed by the appellate court cannot be permitted to be sustained. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the documents which were sought to be produced are directly related and are relevant to the case put forth by the plaintiff before the learned trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the documents which were sought to be produced are directly related and are relevant to the case put forth by the plaintiff before the learned trial court. It has also been stated that the petitioner is an illiterate villager and the documents which were sought to be relied upon by filing them as additional evidence were not in his custody and further that copies of the certain documents available in the record room of the Collectorate are in Urdu language and that the petitioner could get copies of some documents only after a direction was issued by this Court by means of the order dated 18.02.2014, passed in Writ Petition No.1334 (M/B) of 2014. He has thus stated that the petitioner had established "substantial cause" for taking the additional documents on record, however, the learned appellate court has erred in rejecting the said application. 6. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant was wrongly closed by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court having not discussed this aspect of the matter has erred in law in rejecting the application for recalling the defendant as witness. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 7 has vehemently opposed the writ petition stating therein that none of the conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC are fulfilled in this case and hence the order passed by the learned appellate court rejecting both the applications moved by the petitioner-plaintiff does not call for any interference by this Court in this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also stated that the application moved by the petitioner dated 23.04.2014 for production of additional evidence is cryptic and does not disclose any fact which can be co-related with their relevance to the case put forth by the plaintiff before the learned trial court in the suit. He has also stated that no reason has been disclosed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the application as to how and under what circumstances he was intending to lead the additional evidence after dismissal of the suit and during the pendency of the appeal. 9. He has also stated that no reason has been disclosed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the application as to how and under what circumstances he was intending to lead the additional evidence after dismissal of the suit and during the pendency of the appeal. 9. In support of his case, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and others, reported in [1964 SCR (2) 35] and also on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahadev Govind Gharge and others v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka, delivered on 10.05.2011 in Civil Appeal No.5094 of 2005. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 to 7 has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work INC, reported in [ 2007 (14) SCC 257 ], Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others, reported in [ 2004 (10) SCC 779 ] and State of Gujarat and another v. Mohendra Kumar Parshottam Bhai Desai, reported in [ 2006 (9) SCC 772 ]. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also perused the record. 12. So far as the application made by the plaintiff petitioner for permitting him to cross-examine the defendant at the stage of appeal is concerned, it may be noticed that the learned appellate court has given a categorical finding that the defendant had submitted his evidence before the learned trial court on 02.12.2010 and thereafter though the suit was fixed on several dates i.e. 06.12.2010, 10.12.2010, 23.10.2010, 03.01.2011, 07.02.2011 and 22.02.2011, however, the plaintiff did not cross-examine the defendant, as a result of which, the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant was closed. The learned appellate court has also recorded in the order under challenge in this writ petition that the plaintiff moved an application to set aside the order dated 22.02.2011, whereby the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant was closed, however, the said application was rejected. The learned appellate court has, on perusal of record of the learned trial court, recorded a finding that the aforesaid facts are correct. The learned appellate court has, on perusal of record of the learned trial court, recorded a finding that the aforesaid facts are correct. It has also been recorded by the learned appellate court that the application for setting aside the order dated 22.02.2011 was rejected on 15.03.2011 and as such at the stage of the pendency of the appeal permitting the plaintiff-petitioner to cross-examine the defendant would not be appropriate. 13. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the order rejecting the aforesaid applications whereby the plaintiff-petitioner had sought permission to cross-examine the defendant is highly misconceived. From perusal of the order passed by the learned appellate court, it is clear that sufficient time was granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to cross-examine the defendant and the order closing the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant though was challenged by moving an application for setting aside that order, however, the said application was also rejected on 15.03.2011. The plaintiff did not challenge the said order dated 15.03.2011 by taking appropriate remedy before any other higher forum which may be available to him. Thus, so far as the issue relating to rejection of the application moved by the plaintiff seeking permission to cross-examine the defendant is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 24.04.2014, passed by the learned appellate court below. 14. Now, coming to the issue relating to the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC for taking additional evidence on record, the learned appellate court has recorded a finding that for allowing the said application, the conditions precedent as envisaged in Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC are not fulfilled and as such there is no justification for allowing the said application. The learned appellate court has stated that in the application it has cursorily been stated that the documents have been procured by the petitioner plaintiff during the pendency of the appeal, however, the said application does not disclose as to whether the petitioner was having knowledge and possession of the documents at the time of pendency of the suit has not been disclosed. 15. 15. The judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the case of K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work INC, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others and State of Gujarat and another v. Mohendra Kumar Parshottam Bhai Desai, clearly indicate that any additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC can be accepted only in three situations envisaged in Rule 27 of the CPC, namely,(i) that the learned trial court had refused to admit any evidence which ought to have been admitted (ii) that the party seeking to produce the additional evidence establishes that such evidence was not in the knowledge or he could not produce the same even after exercise of due diligence and (iii) that the appellate court requires any document or any witness to be examined to enable it pronounce the judgment, or for any "substantial cause". 16. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiff-petitioner failed to substantiate the fulfillment of conditions precedent as set out under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC is concerned, the perusal of the material available on record of this petition, does reveal that regarding the documents which were sought to be furnished as additional evidence at the appellate stage by the plaintiff-petitioner it cannot be said that despite exercising due diligence, the same were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff. 17. It would be equally appropriate true to infer that it is not the case of the petitioner that any of the documents which were sought by the plaintiff to be produced as additional evidence were refused to be admitted by the learned trial court. It is also true that the learned appellate court had also not required any document to be produced so that it could enable itself to pronounce the judgment. 18. However, despite the aforesaid facts and legal position, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, what needs to be examined, at this juncture, is as to whether there was any "substantial cause" which could permit the petitioner to produce the additional evidence. 19. 18. However, despite the aforesaid facts and legal position, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, what needs to be examined, at this juncture, is as to whether there was any "substantial cause" which could permit the petitioner to produce the additional evidence. 19. The case put forth by the plaintiff before the learned trial court while instituting the suit was that the suit property is ancestral property of the plaintiff which was given to his ancestors by the erstwhile Zamindar and that the land in suit is the land appurtenant to the house of the petitioner, hence, it would be deemed to have settled with the plaintiff under Section 9 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. To establish as to whether the erstwhile owner of the land in suit was Zamindar or not, it appears that the petitioner-plaintiff intended to file the relevant extract of Bandobast khatauni pertaining to 1346 fasli in respect of Gata No.145, the extract of Khasra Bandobast pertaining to 1346 fasli in respect of Gata No.392, the copy of the map prepared during Bandobast pertaining to 1346 fasli and CH Forms 41 and 45 in respect of Gata No.342. Apart from aforesaid four documents, the plaintiff-petitioner also intended to file the extract of Khasra pertaining to 1420 fasli in respect of Gata No.342, copy of the map prepared during current consolidation proceedings issued by the Lekhpal on 22.11.2013 and the extract of Pariwar Register pertaining to House No. 46. 20. So far as the last three documents, namely, the extract of khasra pertaining to 1420 fasli, copy of the map prepared during current consolidation proceedings issued on 22.11.2013 and copy of extract of pariwar register are concerned, the application moved by the plaintiff is absolutely misconceived and the same appears to be an attempt to win a lost case. However, so far as the first four documents as mentioned in the list of documents appended to the application dated 23.04.2014, are concerned, it is pertinent to note that the claim of the petitioner is based on Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the assertion that the land in dispute would be deemed to have settled with him by operation of Section 9 of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R.Act, which is the land appurtenant to the house of the plaintiff. As to whether the land belonged to the erstwhile Zamindar can easily be deciphered from the extract of khatanui Bandobast pertaining to 1346 fasli and also from extract of khasra Babdobast pertaining to 1346 fasli and from the copy of the map Bandobast pertaining to Bandobast 1346 fasli. The CH Form 41 and 45 can be said to be relevant for the purposes of establishing as to from which old plot numbers the new plot number has been carved out. It is also relevant to mention, at this juncture, that the extract of khatauni, khasra and map pertaining to 1346 fasli are very old documents and as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are all in Urdu language. The petitioner was not having the said documents in his possession and for getting the extract of the aforesaid documents, the petitioner had even to approach this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No. 1334 (M/B) of 2014 and it is only when the direction was issued by this Court by means of the judgment and order dated 18.02.2014 that the extract of the aforesaid documents could be provided to the petitioner-plaintiff. 21. Looking into the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned appellate court ought to have considered as to whether the documents which were sought to be produced by the plaintiff as additional evidence does or does not have correlation or relevance to the case set up by the plaintiff in the suit and hence on that basis finding ought to have been recorded by the learned appellate court as to whether any "substantial cause", which is being pleaded by the petitioner, would suffer or not. 22. The application moved by the plaintiff before the learned trial court lacks specific grounds or reasons including the reason that the documents have a corelation with any bearing on the case set up by the plaintiff before the learned trial court while instituting the suit. However, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as disclosed hereinabove, I find it appropriate to direct the learned appellate court to examine the application moved by the plaintiff for adducing the additional evidence dated 23.04.2014 afresh, that too, only so far as the documents mentioned at serial nos. However, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as disclosed hereinabove, I find it appropriate to direct the learned appellate court to examine the application moved by the plaintiff for adducing the additional evidence dated 23.04.2014 afresh, that too, only so far as the documents mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 4 in the list of documents appended to the said application are concerned. 23. So far as the impugned order to the extent it rejects the application for permitting the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant is concerned, no interference in the impugned order is called for. 24. The writ petition is, thus, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms with the direction to the learned appellate court below to consider the application seeking filing of additional evidence dated 23.04.2014 afresh to the extent it relates to the documents numbered at serial no. 1 to 4 mentioned in the list of documents appended to the said application. The learned appellate court will, thus, complete the proceedings of the said application within six weeks. 25. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments, whatsoever. 26. It is further directed that once the application dated 23.04.2014 moved by the plaintiff for furnishing the additional evidence is decided, the appeal thereafter shall be decided within three months thereafter. 27. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Partly allowed.