JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.N. Mishra for the respondents. 2. Plaintiff has initially instituted a suit for declaration? and injunction? but later on, the prayer of declaration was deleted. The trial court rejected the suit for injunction simplicitor. An appeal has been filed, which has remained pending. An application under Order-41? Rule-27 CPC has been filed which has been rejected by the appellate court. 3. From the perusal of the records, it appears that the plaintiff has instituted? suit for injunction with the allegation that the suit property had devolved? upon him, pursuant to Will from one Gajraj. The trial court,? has recorded a finding? that Gajraj has no right? over the suit property and he had filed a suit in 1997, which was also withdrawn. An application, therefore, has now been made by the plaintiff to bring on record certain documents to show his? long standing possession. The appellate court has rejected the application by observing that necessary ingredients? to attract the provisions of Order-41 Rule-27 are not in existence? and, therefore, additional evidence cannot be taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the additional evidence are relevant for the adjudication of the dispute and, therefore, rejection of the application is bad in law. 5. This court finds that in case appeal itself is finally decided against the plaintiff-appellant, the plaintiff appellant would have a remedy of filing a second appeal. The question as to whether the amendment has been wrongly refused, can also be set up as a ground in case the appeal is finally adjudicated? against the petitioner. In view of? such settled position, this court refuses to go into the? question? of legality of the order passed by the court below, rejecting the application to take on record additional evidence. 6. In view of the observations made above, petition fails and is consigned to records.