JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No. 36 of 2013, whereby and whereunder learned appellate court rejected the application of the appellant-the present petitioner filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to admit certain documents as additional evidence. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second, Cuttack. The same was dismissed. He filed R.F.A. No. 36 of 2013 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to admit certain documents as additional evidence. Learned appellate court rejected the same. 3. Heard Mr. P.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.B. Lenka, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. 4. The question does arise as to whether the appellate court can consider the application for additional evidence at any stage of the appeal? 5. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC deals with production of additional evidence in appellate court. Discretion of the appellate court to allow additional evidence is circumscribed by limitation specified in Rule 27 CPC. When the conditions laid down in the rule are satisfied, then the additional evidence can be taken. Court cannot admit additional evidence under its inherent power. 6. This Court in Sankar Pradhan vs. Premananda Pradhan (dead) and Others, 2015 (II) CLR 583 held thus: “7. In Parsotim Thakur and others vs. Lal Mohar Thakur and others, AIR 1931 PC 143 , it is held that under Cl.(1) (b) of Rule 27 it is only where the appellate Court “requires” it, ( i.e., finds it needful) that additional evidence can be admitted. It may be required to enable the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, but in either case it must be the Court that requires it. This is the plain grammatical reading of the sub-clause. It may be required to enable the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, but in either case it must be the Court that requires it. This is the plain grammatical reading of the sub-clause. The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but “when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent.” It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party or that a party may move the Court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the Court upon its appreciation of the evidence as it stands. Wherever the Court adopts this procedure it is bound by Rule 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing (emphasis laid). The same view was taken by this Court in the cases of Banchhanidhi Behera vs. Ananta Upadhaya and others, AIR 1962 Orissa 9 and State Bank of India vs. M/s. Ashok Stores & others, (1982) 53 C.L.T. 552.” (Emphasis laid) 7. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Sankar Pradhan (supra), the order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No. 36 of 2013 is quashed. Learned appellate court shall consider the application of the petitioner for additional evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, learned District Judge, Cuttack shall conclude the hearing of the appeal by end of March, 2017. The petition is disposed of.