ORDER : Heard counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.1 and the State. 2. Learned appellate court has, by the impugned order dated 15th February 2016 passed in Title Appeal No.56 of 2009, rejected the application of the defendant/appellant/petitioner herein to adduce additional evidence in the nature of two sale-deeds bearing no.3693 and 482 dated 19th June 1980 and 30th January 1980 at the appellate stage. Petitioner, being aggrieved, has assailed the same. The suit was brought by the respondent no.1-Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. for declaration of title of the plaintiff and Performa defendant State of Bihar over the land described in Schedule-A and B of the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of land mentioned in Schedule-A; for confirmation of possession of land in Schedule-B of the plaint. It also sought permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants/appellant/petitioner herein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over Schedule-B land and making any construction over the same. Title Suit No.123/1987 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by judgment dated 14th October 2009 (Annexure-1) on contest. 3. Petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred Title Appeal No. 56 of 2009 before the appellate court of District Judge, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur. During the appellate proceeding, these two sale deeds which relate to the year 1980 stated to be instrument conveying title of Plot no.401 and 416 of Mauza Sonari by the heirs of recorded tenant Makar Manjhi were being sought to be brought on record as additional evidence. Reference is made to paragraph-3 of the plaint and paragraph-19 of the written statement by the petitioner in support of the contention that the pleadings relating to plot in question being originally in the name of Makar Manjhi the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, are already on record in the suit before the learned trial court. Petitioner, however, could not adduce these two sale deeds despite exercise of due diligence at the time of trial. He had however adduced two other sale deeds of the year 1978 in respect of the same plots before the learned trial court. The additional evidences were therefore being sought to be produced at the appellate stage under the provisions of Order XLI rule 27 specifically Rule 1(aa) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned appellate court has committed error in refusing the same. 4. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC reads as under:- “27. The additional evidences were therefore being sought to be produced at the appellate stage under the provisions of Order XLI rule 27 specifically Rule 1(aa) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned appellate court has committed error in refusing the same. 4. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC 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— (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. 5. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and counsel representing the respondents and gone through the impugned order as well as the materials on record. 6. Learned appellate court has not been convinced by the plea of the petitioner that two sale deeds could not be adduced as evidence before Trial Court despite due diligence. The two sale deeds said to be in respect of Plot no.401 and 416 are registered documents and apparently, on exercise of due diligence, would have easily been found and relied upon at the stage of trial by the defendants/petitioner herein. The written statement also does not convey any reference to the instant two sale deeds of 19th June 1980 and 30th January 1980 apart from a general averment that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner were descendants of Makar Manjhi. Learned trial court, after consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no.1. Learned trial court, after consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no.1. The ingredients to adduce additional evidence in terms of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, therefore, has not been satisfied by the petitioner. 7. Upon scrutiny of the aforesaid order it appears that it does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or illegality warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it goes without saying that the power can be exercised by the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 24 (1)(b), if the appellate court requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. That judicial discretion can be exercised by the learned appellate court at the appropriate stage depending on the totality of attendant facts and materials on record before it. Therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.