JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 9.3.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in R.F.A.No.29/18 of 2015-16, whereby and where under, the learned appellate court has rejected the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for acceptance of certain documents as additional evidence. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S.No.19 of 2014 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rairakhol for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land. The suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, he filed R.F.A.No.29 of 2015 before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned A.D.J., Sambalpur and renumbered as R.F.A.No.29/18 of 2015-16. He filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 praying inter alia to accept certain documents as additional evidence and mark the same as exhibits. The same having been rejected, the instant petition has been filed to lacinate the said order. 3. Heard Mr. Bose, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The question does arise as to whether the learned appellate court can reject the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C before hearing of the appeal? 4. The subject matter of dispute is no more res integra. 5. In Sankar Pradhan Vrs. Premananda Pradhan (dead) and others, 2015(2) CLR 583, this Court in paragraph-7 of the report held as follows:- “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. 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. 6. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Sankar Pradhan (supra), the inescapable conclusion is that the application for additional evidence can be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. Resultantly, the order dated 9.3.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in R.F.A.No.29/18 of 2015-16 is quashed. The appellate court shall consider the application of the appellant for additional evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. The learned appellate court is directed to conclude the hearing of the appeal by end of December, 2017. The petition is allowed.