JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. This disgruntled plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.06.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ranaghat in connection with Title Appeal Bearing No. 12/2010, which emanates from the Title Suit No. 163 of 2004. 2. According to the petitioner/plaintiff Learned Court below as well as First Appellate Court misconstrued the provision of law and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion. In the Title Suit Bearing No. 163/2004 this petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for a decree in favour of herself as the first wife of deceased Tapan Kumar Sarkar and a decree that no marriage took place between Sudha Dey (defendant/respondent) with Tapan Kumar Sarkar since deceased. She had also prayed for temporary and permanent injunction restraining the defendant/opposite party from claiming herself as the first wife of Tapan Kunar Sarkar. In the Trial Court her claim was dismissed after recording evidence of both parties. She prayed for an appeal before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ranaghat and at the same time prayed for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned First Appellate Court after hearing both sides had rejected the said order and being aggrieved at it the petitioner has come before this forum. 3. At the time of hearing Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that she wanted to adduce vital evidence and documents which were the live-wire of the suit. But her such prayer was rejected by the Learned First Appellate Court. Learned Counsel categorically submitted that those documents were required to be proved for effective adjudication of the dispute. 4. As against this Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference because it is a very well reasoned order and the said order has taken care of all the material aspects and legal aspects as well. 5. Additional evidence shall not be granted unless anyone of these conditions is satisfied: (i) Improper refusal of evidence by Trial Court which ought to have been admitted; (ii) Non-production of evidence notwithstanding exercise of due diligence; (iii) Requirement of the Trial Court itself for pronouncing judgment i.e. impossible to pronounce judgment without the additional evidence; (iv) Any other substantial cause; 6. From the order of the Learned Court below it does not transpire that the Trial Court has improperly refused any evidence which ought to have been admitted by the Appellate Court. At the time of filing the petition under Order 41 Rule 27, the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to produce before the Appellate Court some inland letters, post cards, original certificate of death, one original ration card, one voter identification card of the plaintiff and original photograph along with the negative, which were mechanically rejected by the Learned First Appellate Court. But there is no proper explanation on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff as to why those documents were not produced before the Trial Court. Only explanation is given that such letter was kept in an abandoned suit case in her matrimonial house. That explanation seems to be not genuine and only to fill up the lacuna the petitioner/plaintiff has taken such defence. This was intended to patch the weak points of the case and to fill up the omission in the Court of appeal. So quite rightly, Learned Court below has rejected the application. But at the same time this Court is under an obligation to see which documents are necessary for the effective adjudication of the case. Since it is the case of petitioner/plaintiff that she is the first wife of deceased Tapan Kumar Sarkar some sort of documentary evidence is required. In the petition itself it appears that she also wanted to produce original certificate of death, one original ration card bearing No. 447100, one original voter identification card standing in the name of plaintiff issued by Election Commission of India. Since the death certificate, ration card, voter identification card are public documents in nature so Learned First Appellate Court ought to have taken into consideration in respect of those documents, which cannot be guessed as manufactured after the filing of the suit. 7. In such circumstances, this Court has no option left with except to modify the impugned order by directing the Learned First Appellate Court to give an opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence in respect of those three documents and at the same time opposite party will be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter, he has to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 8. This revisional application stands disposed of in the light of direction made above. 9. 8. This revisional application stands disposed of in the light of direction made above. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned First Appellate Court for information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 10. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and Order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.