JUDGMENT : DR. A.K. RATH, J. 01. This petition challenges the order dated 10.8.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.01/189 of 2015/12. By the said order, the lower appellate court rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for admitting certain documents as additional evidence. 02. Opposite parties as plaintiffs instituted C.S. No.771/167 of 2010/2000 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaleswar for partition of Schedule-Ka property and declaration of title in respect of Schedule Ka/1 property impleading the petitioner as defendant. The suit was decreed. Challenging the judgment and decree, the petitioner filed RFA No.01/189 of 2015/2012 in the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore. In the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been filed to admit certain documents as additional evidence. The same has been rejected. 03. Heard Mr. D.P Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 04. The question does arise as to whether the learned appellate court can consider the application for additional evidence at any stage of the appeal? 05. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. This Court in Sankar Pradhan v. Premananda Pradhan (dead) and others, 2015 (II) CLR 583 held thus: “7. In Parsotim Thakur and others 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) 06. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Sankar Pradhan (supra), the order dated 10.8.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.01/189 of 2015/12 is quashed. The learned lower appellate court shall consider the application for additional evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. Since the appeal is of the year 2012, the learned appellate court shall dispose of the same within a period of three months. 07. The petition is allowed.