JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 25.4.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhanjanagar in RFA No.01 of 2009. By the said order, learned appellate court rejected the application of the appellant-petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to admit certain documents as additional evidence. 2. Opposite parties 5 and 6 as plaintiffs instituted C.S No.19 of 2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhanjanagar for permanent injunction impleading the petitioner as defendant. The suit was decreed. Assailing the judgment and decree, the defendant filed RFA No.01 of 2009 in the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Bhanjanagar. During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner-appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce certain documents as additional evidence. Learned lower appellate court rejected the same. 3. Heard Mr.K.P Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.R. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 5 and 6. 4. The sole question that hinges for consideration is as to whether the learned appellate court can consider the application for additional evidence at any stage of the appeal? 5. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. This Court in the case Sankar Pradhan v. Premananda Pradhan (dead) and others, 2015 (II) CLR 583 held thus: “7. In Persotim Thakur Vrs. Lal Mohar Thakur and others, AIR 1931 Privy Council 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. 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 Vrs. Ananta Upadhaya and others, AIR 1962 Orissa 9 and State Bank of India Vrs. M/s.Ashok Stores & others, 53 (1982) C.L.T.552.” (emphasis laid) 6. Reverting to the facts of this case and keeping in view the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the hearing of the appeal has not commenced. Without scanning the pleading and evidence, both oral and documentary, the appellate court abruptly came to hold that it will not be proper to permit the appellant to adduce additional evidence. The appellate court fell into patent error in rejecting the petition. 7. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Sankar Pradhan (supra), the order dated 25.4.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhanjanagar in RFA No.01 of 2009 is quashed. Learned lower appellate court is directed to consider the application for additional evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. Since the appeal is of the year 2009, learned lower appellate court shall do well to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The petition is allowed. No costs.