JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 15.07.2000 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act/ IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No.122 of 1998, by which the application for amendment of plaint filed by the plaintiff has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before allowing any amendment, the court has to see that whether such amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties or not. If this preliminary duty is not fulfilled then the order shall be arbitrary. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case Rajesh Kumar Agarwal vs. K.K. Modi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 , in which, in para-18, it has been held: - "As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court." 4. By order dated 15.07.2000, the appellate court has allowed the application for amendment as well as allowed the appellant to file certain documents. 5. In the present matter, while allowing the application for amendment, the court has considered the aspect that the previous Case No.10 of 1947 was decided in terms of compromise in original plaint. The decree of the case has been referred in which the parties have also led their evidence to this effect. 5. In the present matter, while allowing the application for amendment, the court has considered the aspect that the previous Case No.10 of 1947 was decided in terms of compromise in original plaint. The decree of the case has been referred in which the parties have also led their evidence to this effect. Learned court below has also considered the case laws placed by both the parties. 6. It is not disputed that there was reference of Case No.10 of 1947 in the plaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entirely new fact is being brought before the appellate court. It also appears that there were some dispute regarding the said compromise decree. Therefore, this can be said to be a real dispute between the parties. 7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the court below has not considered the real controversy test. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that both the applications were allowed subject to payment of cost and the learned counsel for the petitioner has also received the cost. Therefore, the present petition is not tenable. 9. As far as the application under Order XLI Rule 27 for filing certain documents is concerned, the appellant had stated in his application that those papers were not in the knowledge of the appellant, therefore, they are now being filed. 10. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the case of Andisamy Chettiar vs. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in [ 2016 (1) ARC 7 ], Hon'ble the Apex Court in para-11 has held as under: - "Under the scheme of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") whether oral or documentary, it is the trial court before whom parties are required to adduce their evidence. But in three exceptional circumstances additional evidence can be adduced before the appellate court, as provided under S. 107(1)(d) read with Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code. Rule 27 of Order XLI reads as under: - "27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. - (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. Rule 27 of Order XLI reads as under: - "27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. - (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if - The Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (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, or (b) The Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, The Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission." 11. Certainly, the parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence except for the reasons mentioned in Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. But if the requirement of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. are satisfied, then the court may allow the party to adduce the additional evidence without fulfillment of any other conditions. 12. In the order dated 15.07.2000, it has been itself mentioned that the appellant has mentioned in the application that these papers were not in the knowledge of the appellant and when he came to know then he went to Bihar and collected those papers. 13. The perusal of the aforesaid reasoning shows that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. (1) (aa) have been satisfied. 14. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. Learned court below has considered all aspects of the matter and the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2000 is in accordance with law. I also do not find any error of law or perversity in the order. The petition lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. 16. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.