JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:- “To quash the order dated 19.03.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge 4th, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No.85 of 2010 Kishan Singh Nagpal (deceased) and others vs. Dharmender Kumar Jain and further to allow the Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.” 2. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the lower appellate court has granted liberty to the appellant (petitioner herein) to place on record the subsequent events by way of affidavit, which were already on record, but at the same time rejected the application (paper no.32 Ka). 3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , wherein it was held : “49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronouns judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the court.” 4. It, therefore, follows that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC can only be heard and decided at the time of final hearing of appeal to find out as to whether the documents sought to be produced are required for the fair adjudication of the case or not and such application could not be entertained prior to the final hearing of the appeal. The court below has exactly done the same, but at the same time rejected the application of the appellant (petitioner herein), which should not have been done. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the lower appellate court to decide the application (paper no.32 Ka) at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The impugned order is modified to the extent as above. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the validity or otherwise of dismissal of the amendment application (paper no.30 Ka).