JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.1.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015 by which application 13-Ga filed by the petitioners to adduce additional evidence in appeal, has been rejected. 3. The petitioners’ predecessor in interest instituted Original Suit No. 1158 of 2002 which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 1.12.2014 against which Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015 was filed. In the pending civil appeal, an application 13-Ga was filed for bringing on record Khewat extract of 1333 F by way of additional evidence. 4. In the application it was stated that the suit was dismissed because the plaintiff had failed to file document disclosing that the name of Guljari Lal was entered in revenue record in respect of the plot concerned; that despite hectic search the record of the Tehsil was not made available and the S.D.M. had not supplied copy of the relevant revenue record because the records were under compilation therefore, as soon as it was made available, the same was being filed now; and that the document being a certified copy of public record, ought to be received in evidence. 5. An objection was filed to the aforesaid application claiming that no material particular was given to show that any effort was made to obtain copy of the aforesaid documentary evidence during the pendency of the matter before the trial Court and further no material had been brought on record to show as to when application was moved to obtain the document and whether any such application was made during the trial Court proceeding. It was thus claimed that the document could not be accepted as additional evidence on any of the grounds contemplated by Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 6. The Court below rejected the application upon finding that no material was brought on record by the appellant to show whether an application to obtain copy of the Khewat extract was made during the trial Court proceeding. The Court below disbelieved the appellant’s claim that despite effort the document could not be produced before the trial Court because, had it been so, application could have been filed before the trial Court to adjourn the proceeding for enabling production of the document. The Court below disbelieved the appellant’s claim that despite effort the document could not be produced before the trial Court because, had it been so, application could have been filed before the trial Court to adjourn the proceeding for enabling production of the document. It was held by the Court below that as no material was placed before the Court to demonstrate as to when an application to obtain copy of the document was moved and, further, no concrete material was produced to explain the delay of over 12 years in bringing the document on record, the explanation offered was not acceptable and, therefore, the application was liable to rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the document was part of a public record it ought to have been accepted and the application should not have been rejected. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Lakshman and others, 2016 (13) SCC 124 , in which the Apex Court had observed that when an application to bring additional evidence, relating to public documents, is filed and there is no objection to the said application, then averments made in the application should be accepted as unrebutted and to secure the ends of justice, additional evidence should be admitted. Reliance has also been placed on decision of this Court in Chaudhari Haider Hussain and others v. Apar Ayukt (Prashasan), Lucknow Division and others, 2016(6) ADJ 143 (LB), to contend that where existence of a document is already admitted then the document should be taken on record by way of additional evidence, which is not the case here. Another decision of the Apex Court in Shalimar Chemicals Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and others, 2010 (8) SCC 423 , has been relied wherein a photocopy of the document was already on the record therefore the Apex Court found that the mistake was on the part of the Court in accepting a photocopy and as such original was acceptable by way of additional evidence to do complete justice. Under the circumstances, the said decision would not be applicable on the facts of the present case. 9. Under the circumstances, the said decision would not be applicable on the facts of the present case. 9. The judgment in K.V. Lakshman’s case (supra) on which reliance has been placed had special features which would be clear from the observations contained in paragraph 33 of the judgment where the reasons have been culled out to accept the additional evidence in that case. Paragraph 33 is being reproduced herein below: “33. First, there was no one to oppose the application. In other words, the respondents were neither served with the notice of appeal and nor served with the application and hence they did not oppose the application. Second, the appellant averred in the application as to why they could not file the additional evidence earlier in civil suit and why there was delay on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate stage. Third, the averments in the application were supported with an affidavit, which remained un-rebutted. Fourth, the application also contained necessary averment as to why the additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy involved in appeal. Fifth, the additional evidence being in the nature of public documents and pertained to suit land, the same should have been taken on record and lastly, the appellant being the Union of India was entitled to legitimately claim more indulgence in such procedural matters due to their peculiar set up and way of working.” 10. In that case there was no one to oppose the application; no reply in rebuttal was filed to an affidavit which disclosed the reasons justifying admissibility of additional evidence; and being a matter of Union of India claim for more indulgence was found justified in the facts of the case. 11. No doubt, when a public document is sought to be brought on record the Court may adopt a more lenient approach considering that the possibility of document having been subsequently manufactured is less. 11. No doubt, when a public document is sought to be brought on record the Court may adopt a more lenient approach considering that the possibility of document having been subsequently manufactured is less. But it is equally well-settled that for a party to be allowed to bring additional evidence on record in appellate proceeding, the Court must be satisfied on existence of either of the three conditions : (a) that the evidence in question was tendered in Lower Court but was improperly or illegally rejected by it; or (b) that in spite of 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 was passed against him; or (c) that the Appellate Court itself requires the additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. 12. In the instant case, the first condition is not applicable and in so far as the second condition is concerned, the application filed does not disclose material particulars as to when the alleged Khewat entry was applied for and as to when it was obtained and whether any application was made to obtain its copy during the trial Court’s proceeding or not and, if so, then when. Further, there is no documentary evidence brought on record by way of RTI report or otherwise to demonstrate that the Tehsil records were under compilation process and therefore no copies were being issued. All these facts were relevant which ought to have been brought before the Court below to enable it to draw satisfaction that despite exercise of due diligence by the applicant he could not have produced the document earlier in the trial Court proceeding. 13. Mere fact that the document is a public document is not enough to make it eligible for acceptance as an additional evidence in appeal unless any of the conditions, on which additional evidence is acceptable, is satisfied (See Ghurahu v. Civil Judge (Senior Division), (2004) 57 ALR 227; Hoti Lal v. Additional District Judge, Khurja, (2005) 61 ALR 420; Mundri Lal v. Sushila Rani, (2006) 65 ALR 867). In this regard it would be apposite to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai, (2006) 9 SCC 772 , where the documents sought to be adduced before the appellate Court were part of Government records. The High Court had refused to accept the documents on the ground that there was no cogent explanation as to why despite exercise of due diligence the party could not produce it before trial Court. Approving the view taken by the High Court, the Apex Court observed as follows: “10.....The High Court referred to the earlier proceedings before various authorities and came to the conclusion that though the appellants had sufficient opportunity to bring the evidence on record, for reasons best known to it, the State did not produce the entire evidence before the trial Court and it was only 8 years after the dismissal of the suit that the applications were filed for adducing additional evidence in the appeal. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the applications for adducing additional evidence. 11. We find no error in the approach of the High Court. We have earlier noticed the long history of litigation which preceded the filing of the suit. The documents sought to be brought on record are not documents which were discovered later or came into existence after the filing of the suit. The documents are part of the Government records and they could have been produced in the suit.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Court below has found that there was no cogent material brought on record to demonstrate that despite exercise of due diligence the documents could not be produced before the trial Court and further there was no cogent material brought on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that he made an effort earlier to obtain certified copy of the document except the bald averments which were not satisfactory. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the Court below is a possible view and as such there is no legal error which may warrant exercise of power under under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.1.2017 is rejected. 15. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the Court below is a possible view and as such there is no legal error which may warrant exercise of power under under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.1.2017 is rejected. 15. However, keeping in mind the Apex Court decision in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , where the Apex Court has observed that as to whether the additional evidence should be accepted by the Court to pronounce its judgment or for any other substantial cause, the appropriate stage for such consideration would be the stage of hearing the matter, it is observed that the appellate Court at the time of hearing the matter shall not be precluded from considering whether the document in question is required for any of the reasons contemplated by clause (c) of sub rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC, which is pari materia clause (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code, notwithstanding rejection of the application No. 13 Ga. 16. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the acceptability of the document under clause (c) (pari materia clause (b) of the Code) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code. With the aforesaid observation this petition is disposed of.