JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri B.N. Rai, along with Sri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.7.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, Court No. 8, by which the petitioner's application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') has been rejected. 3. While assailing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the court below has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application, as the entire proceeding and its outcome was based on forged will and forged assessment report of Nagar Palika. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent no. 2 filed Suit No. 586 of 1978 before the Munshif City for partition of House No. 10/284, Khalasi Lines, Kanpur. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on 26.11.1980. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent herein filed Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1981, which was allowed on 24.3.1982 and the trial court was directed to prepare the preliminary decree. Against the order dated 23.3.1982, the petitioner herein filed second appeal. The second appeal was dismissed by this Court.? After the preparation of preliminary decree, the final decree was also passed.? Against the final decree, the present petitioner has filed appeal, which has been numbered as Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2011.? In the appeal, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC on 10.2.2014.? The appellate court has rejected the application on the ground that allowing the present application would mean the upsetting of the preliminary decree, which has attained finality upto the High Court.? Further, the application has been filed at the belated stage without there being any proper explanation as to why this was not filed at the earliest possible time.? For appreciating the controversy, it would be necessary to go through the sub-rule (1)(aa) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the CPC, which reads as under: "(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." 5. From the perusal of the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, I do not find any whisper as to why for these long duration since 1978 to January, 2014, the necessary evidence as prayed was not filed. Therefore, lack of due diligence is apparent. Whatever ground for not filing the evidence has been taken, appears to be misconceived and cannot be allowed to be sustained as the sole ground is the advice of the counsel, who deducted the same at the time of preparation of the appeal.? The Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. M/s Cork Manufacturing Co. ( AIR 2008 SC 56 ) has held that lack of legal advice for not filing evidence before the court below cannot be a ground for allowing an application to file an additional evidence at the appellate stage and that also does not constitute substantial cause and the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC cannot be allowed on the ground that it was not advised by the counsel earlier. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.