JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. —The present application has been maintained by the applicant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ''the applicant'') under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC to lead additional evidence. As per the applicant, the regular second appeal is pending adjudication, which arose as both the Courts below have given findings against the applicant in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and the suit as well as the appeal stood dismissed. As per the applicant, he maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the non-applicants/respondents (The State of Himachal Pradesh and another) (hereinafter referred to as ''the non-applicants'') on the averments that non-applicants without any right, title and interest are interfering in the owner-ship and possession of the applicant over the suit land and trying to forcibly construct Theog-Kotkhai road through the suit land without acquiring the same in accordance with law. As per the applicant, earlier also, respondent No. 1 had constructed a road through the land owned and possessed by the applicant without acquiring the same and only after orders were passed by the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 937 of 1996, the land of the applicant, to the extent of 2 bighas and 2 biswas, was acquired. It is the case of the applicant/appellant that the road was constructed in the year 1955, but the land was acquired only when the writ petition was filed. As per the applicant, after the acquisition of the land, the settlement took place and wrong revenue record was prepared. A Guest House was constructed by the applicant, which is shown in the owner-ship of non-applicant No. 1, that is, on a portion of the road. He has further stated that thereafter correction was made and now he wants to place on record the order of the Settlement Collector, which is necessary for adjudication of the case in hand. The application is duly supported with an affidavit. 2. I have heard the learned counsel/Senior Counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record in detail. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the order was passed during the pendency of the appeal and the same is relevant for adjudicating the present regular second appeal. On the other hand, Mr. 2. I have heard the learned counsel/Senior Counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record in detail. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the order was passed during the pendency of the appeal and the same is relevant for adjudicating the present regular second appeal. On the other hand, Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that as per Order 41, Rule 27, the present application cannot be allowed, as it is only in exceptional circumstances that the additional evidence can be allowed to be produced in the Hon''ble Appellate Court. He has further argued that even the present appeal is not the first appeal where this Court has to appreciate the facts, but only this Court has to consider the appeal on the substantial questions of law. He has argued that there had already been three demarcations, which show that the applicant has encroached upon the land of the non-applicants and the encroachment is coming in between the road. He has argued that earlier the road existed on the spot since the year 1955, but the applicant filed a writ petition in the Hon''ble High Court and obtained directions for the non-applicants to acquire the suit land. The learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the proposal was to acquire the lesser land, but the applicant maintained objections and total 2 bighas and 2 biswas land was acquired and total amount of Rs. 22 lac was paid to the applicant. He has further argued that subsequently the applicant made encroachment upon the land acquired by the non-applicants and he was not at that time having any knowledge that the road will be widened at some point of time, but now when the road is being widened the applicant is coming up with different pleas. The learned Senior Counsel has also argued that the applicant has manipulated the order of the Settlement Officer and appeal is maintained by the State of Himachal Pradesh against that order. He has argued that in the learned Courts below the applicant has never moved any application for leading additional evidence nor he has produced any evidence to this effect that the settlement record is wrong and the applicant wanted to lead any evidence. He has argued that in the learned Courts below the applicant has never moved any application for leading additional evidence nor he has produced any evidence to this effect that the settlement record is wrong and the applicant wanted to lead any evidence. The learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the plea to lead additional evidence is without any basis, as the learned Courts below have already come to the conclusion after three demarcations, two carried-out by the revenue officers/Local Commissioners appointed at the instance of the applicant at different points of time and one by the Commissioner appointed by the Court, who was also a revenue officer, which have attained finality after the objections of the applicants were dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: 1. N. Kamal (Dead) and another v. Ayyasamy and another, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 503 ; 2. Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala and another, (2010) 13 Supreme Court cases 487 ; & 3. Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148. 4. So far as the present application is concerned, it is on record that the acquisition proceedings were started in this case after the directions were issued by this Hon''ble High Court and when lesser land was acquired it was the applicant who filed objections and thus land to the extent of 2 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired. 5. It is on record that the suit was filed 28.02.2005 and it was dismissed on 26.05.2010. The appeal qua dismissal was filed on 22.06.2010 and the same was dismissed on 20.06.2011. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed on 19.07.2011 and since then the same is pending adjudication. As per the applicant, the proceedings qua correction of settlement were pending. Now the Settlement Officer has passed the order in his favour showing the land to be in his ownership and possession. However, before passing of the said order the applicant did not move any application in the learned Courts below to bring on record the factum qua pendency of the correction application before the settlement authorities. At the same point of time, the order passed by the Settlement Officer is under appeal. However, before passing of the said order the applicant did not move any application in the learned Courts below to bring on record the factum qua pendency of the correction application before the settlement authorities. At the same point of time, the order passed by the Settlement Officer is under appeal. Admittedly, three demarcations qua the suit land were conducted, two at the instance of the applicant and third at the instance of the learned Court, in all the three reports, which have attained finality, the suit land was found to be in the ownership of State Government (non-applicant No. 1). It has come on record that the applicant has encroached upon this land in the year 2000. As per the applicant, correction order is there, application under Order 41 Rule 27 is required to be allowed. This plea of the applicant is to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Order 41 deals with "Appeals from Original Decrees" and Rule 27 is extracted in extenso hereunder: "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- (a) 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." 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly banked upon Clause (aa) ibid and argued that the appellant could not produce the evidence, which is now sought to be produced, even after exercising due diligence. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission." 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly banked upon Clause (aa) ibid and argued that the appellant could not produce the evidence, which is now sought to be produced, even after exercising due diligence. This Court finds that the applicant was having ample opportunity to approach the learned Courts below on earlier dates and produce the evidence with respect to pendency of the correction application, but the applicant had chosen to get the land demarcated, which was demarcated thrice and in all the three times it was found that the land is in the ownership of the State-respondent No. 1. Thus, it cannot be said that the applicant could not have produced the evidence earlier. The fact remains that earlier the applicant did not produce on record anything with regard to correction application and he was aware that the demarcations have conclusively proved that the land is in the ownership of non-applicant No. 1. Now whether any party can be allowed to improve upon his case at the belated stage, that is, at the stage of regular second appeal, which is only pending adjudication on substantial questions of law of general importance, the answer is that application under Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be allowed and the applicant can also not be allowed to improve upon his case and fill in the lacunae in the evidence. 7. The Hon''ble Apex Court in N. Kamalam (Dead) and another v. Ayyasamy and another, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 503 , held as under: "19. Incidentally, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 have not been engrafted in the Code so as to patch up the weak points in the case and to fill up the omission in the court of appeal - it does not authorize any lacunae or gaps in evidence to be filled up. The authority and jurisdiction as conferred on to the appellate court to let in fresh evidence is restricted to the purpose of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way. This Court in Municipal Corpn. The authority and jurisdiction as conferred on to the appellate court to let in fresh evidence is restricted to the purpose of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way. This Court in Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008 , has been candid enough to record that the requirement of the High Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. In para 9 of the judgment, this Court observed: "This provision does not entitle the High Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. The High Court does not say that there is any such lacuna in this case. On the other hand what it says is that certain documentary evidence on record supports ''in a large measure'' the plaintiffs'' contention about fraud and mala fides. We shall deal with these documents presently but before that we must point out that the power under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 cannot be exercised for adding to the evidence already on record except upon one of the grounds specified in the provision." Further in Pramod Kumari Bhatia v. Om Prakash Bhatia, (1980) 1 SCC 412 , this Court also in more or less an identical situation laid down that since an application to the High Court has been made very many years after the filing of the suit and also quite some years after the appeal had been filed before the High Court, question of interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to receive an additional evidence at that stage would not arise. The time-lag in the matter under consideration is also enormous and the additional evidence sought to be produced was as a matter of fact after a period of 10 years after the filing of the appeal. Presently, the suit was instituted in the year 1981 and the decree therein was passed in 1983. The time-lag in the matter under consideration is also enormous and the additional evidence sought to be produced was as a matter of fact after a period of 10 years after the filing of the appeal. Presently, the suit was instituted in the year 1981 and the decree therein was passed in 1983. The first appeal was filed before the High Court in April 1983 but the application for permission to adduce additional evidence came to be made only in August 1993. Needless to record that the courts shall have to be cautious and must always act with great circumspection in dealing with the claims for letting in additional evidence particularly, in the form of oral evidence at the appellate stage and that too, after a long lapse of time. In our view, a plain reading of Order 41 Rule 27 would depict that the rejection of the claim for production of additional evidence after a period of 10 years from the date of filing of the appeal, as noticed above, cannot be termed to be erroneous or an illegal exercise of discretion. The three limbs of Rule 27 do not stand attracted. The learned trial Judge while dealing with the matter has, as a matter of fact, very strongly commented upon the lapse and failure on the part of the plaintiffs even to summon the attestors to the will and in our view contextually, the justice of the situation does not warrant any interference. The attempt, the High Court ascribed it to be a stage-managed affair in order to somehow defeat the claim of the respondents - and having had the privilege of perusal of record we lend our concurrence thereto and the finding of the High Court cannot be found fault with for rejecting the prayer of the appellants for additional evidence made in the belated application. In that view of the matter, the first issue is answered in the negative and thus against the plaintiffs, being the appellants herein. 8. Similarly, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala and another, (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 487 , has held as under: "16. In that view of the matter, the first issue is answered in the negative and thus against the plaintiffs, being the appellants herein. 8. Similarly, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala and another, (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 487 , has held as under: "16. If any petition is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 in an appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate court to consider at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. It is trite to observe that under Order 41 Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the appellate court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature." 9. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 148 , has held as under: "42. Whenever the appellate court admits additional evidence it should record its reasons for doing so (sub-rule (2)). It is a salutary provision which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another reason of this requirement is that, where a further appeal lies from the decision, the record of reasons will be useful and necessary for the court of further appeal to see, if the discretion under this Rule has been properly exercised by the court below. The omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect. But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such evidence can be justified under the Rule." 10. The omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect. But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such evidence can be justified under the Rule." 10. From the above it is clear that the applicant has no case in his favour to allow the production of additional evidence, as the factum with regard to pendency of the proceedings qua correction of the settlement record was within his knowledge and no application was ever filed in the learned Courts below, though the suit was pending adjudication since 2005. At the same point of time three demarcations were carried out by the expert revenue officials holding the land in the ownership of non-applicant No. 1 and at the same point of time the fact that the applicant got compensation for the said land, after the proceedings were concluded coupled with the fact that the application was moved after a long time, it cannot be said that the applicant was not in a position to lead such evidence in the learned courts below. Therefore, this Court finds no reasons in allowing the application, rather there are strong reasons to dismiss the application. It has also come on record that the correction order was appealed against by the non-applicants/respondents before the appellate authority. 11. It is well settled that the additional evidence cannot be permitted to be produced so as to fill in the lacunae or weak points of the case. As far as the knowledge of the applicant with regard to correction application was concerned, it was within his knowledge from more than last ten years, but no application was ever moved by the applicant neither in the Appellate Court below nor any evidence was adduced by him at the time of producing any evidence and the application was moved after a lapse of more than ten years when the appeal before this Court was pending. 12. This Court again reiterate what has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in N. Kamalam''s case (supra) is that the Courts must always be cautious and should act with utmost circumspection while dealing with prayers for letting in additional evidence at appellate stage, that too after a lapse of time. 13. 12. This Court again reiterate what has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in N. Kamalam''s case (supra) is that the Courts must always be cautious and should act with utmost circumspection while dealing with prayers for letting in additional evidence at appellate stage, that too after a lapse of time. 13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, it is clear that there is no reason to allow the application and permit the applicant to adduce additional evidence. Resultantly, the application being without any merits deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.