ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are the substituted plaintiff nos.4 & 5 in Title Suit No.51 of 2003, are aggrieved of order dated 18.01.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.01 of 2017 by which their application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has been rejected. 2. Title Suit No.51 of 2003 (re-numbered as 65 of 2005) was instituted by Ram Nath Singh for a decree for declaration of his perpetual right, title and interest over the suit schedule land through adverse possession and confirmation of his possession over the same. A declaration in respect of final publication of the record of rights dated 31.03.1992 as illegal, wrong and erroneous was also sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land is not included in the lease-deed, granted in favour of the defendant- TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur by the State of Bihar, is reflected in the report of the Circle Officer dated 11.04.1991 and it is the plaintiff who is in continuous possession over the suit land. During pendency of the suit the plaintiff- Ram Nath Singh died and his legal heirs and successors were substituted in his place. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2016 and a decree was prepared and signed on 02.12.2016. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed Original Civil Appeal No.01 of 2017. During the course of argument in the said appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed on 02.01.2018 for taking lease-deeds dated 01.08.1985 and 20.08.2005 as additional evidence. This application has been dismissed on the ground that these documents are not necessary for arriving at a just decision in the case. 3. Sub-rule 1 to Rule 27 of Order XLI C.P.C mandates that additional evidence shall not be taken at the appellate stage. This restriction has, however, statutory exceptions under sub-rule 1(a), (aa) and (b). It provides that if evidence which ought to have been taken has been refused by the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, it may be admitted in evidence [clause (a)]. Under clause (aa) if the party seeking permission to produce additional evidence establishes that in spite of due diligence the document sought to be produced in evidence at appellate stage could not have been produced before the court below, such document also may be admitted in evidence. Under clause (aa) if the party seeking permission to produce additional evidence establishes that in spite of due diligence the document sought to be produced in evidence at appellate stage could not have been produced before the court below, such document also may be admitted in evidence. The real intent and import of Rule 27(1) of Order XLI C.P.C is that if a document is required to be admitted in evidence or a witness to be examined to enable the appellate court to pronounce judgment, keeping in mind the provisions under clause (a) and clause (aa), the appellate court may permit production of a document or examination of a witness. But, clause (a) and clause (aa) are not the only instances in which additional document may be taken in evidence at the appellate stage. Rule 27(1)(b) confers powers upon the appellate court to admit in evidence any document for any other substantial cause. Evidently, irrespective of the restriction under Order XLI Rule 27(1), wide powers have been conferred upon the appellate court to admit a document in evidence or to examine a witness at the appellate stage. 4. The stage at which the application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C should be decided is the final hearing of the appeal; in an appeal after the parties appear it is posted for final hearing. Normally, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C should not be decided before both parties have concluded their arguments in the appeal. Except in the aforesaid two circumstance, and in a case where on the face of the records application for additional evidence is found frivolous, before final hearing in the appeal the appellate court cannot form an opinion whether a document should be admitted in evidence or a witness has to be examined and, therefore, the application for additional evidence should normally be decided at the final hearings in the appeal. In “Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another” reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 , the Supreme Court has observed thus; “49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the court.” 5. Thus, it is apparent that in cases in which on the face of the records it is apparent that a party to the suit was grossly negligent and fails to establish due diligence on his part and in cases where the application for taking additional evidence is found frivolous, a decision on the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC should be taken by the appellate court at the end of the final hearings in the appeal. In the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 the appellate court has recorded a finding on merits of the lease-deeds sought to be produced by the appellants. The appellate court has, thus, prejudged the issue, without even taking the lease-deeds on records. The procedure adopted by the appellate court is apparently erroneous and, thus, the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 warrants interference. Accordingly, it is quashed. The application dated 02.01.2018 is restored to its original file and it shall be heard by the appellate court, if pressed by the appellants, at the end of final hearing in the appeal. 6. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.