JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is appellant in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2015, is aggrieved of order dated 09.08.2018 by which her applications dated 02.04.2018 and 09.01.2018 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC have been dismissed. 2. Title Suit No. 42 of 2004 was instituted by the petitioner for a decree for declaration of her Raiyati Kayami subsisting right, title and interest over the suit land and for a decree for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and altering the nature and character of the suit property. The suit was dismissed on contest by judgment dated 13.10.2015. In the pending appeal, after argument on both sides was closed the petitioner filed an application for adducing a certified copy of order-sheet of L.R.D.C court and Sada Hukumnama to establish her Raiyati Kayami rights over the suit land. 3. Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certified copy of the aforesaid document which is more than 70 years old and, thus, public document, should have been admitted as additional evidence and, moreover, when the plaintiff’s claim has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to produce documentary evidence on her right, title and interest, it was more so a reason for taking those documents on record. 4. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is bereft of substance. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC mandates that the parties shall not be permitted to lead additional evidence in the appellate Court. Sub-rule 1 to Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC 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 inspite 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 inspite 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 CPC 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. 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. 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. It is by now well known that the ground on which the suit was dismissed cannot be met by the appellant by producing additional evidence (refer, “Parsotim Thakur Vs. Lal Mohar Thakur” reported in AIR 1931 PC 143 ). Petitioner’s claim that a public document must be admitted in evidence is also liable to be rejected. It is by now well known that the ground on which the suit was dismissed cannot be met by the appellant by producing additional evidence (refer, “Parsotim Thakur Vs. Lal Mohar Thakur” reported in AIR 1931 PC 143 ). Petitioner’s claim that a public document must be admitted in evidence is also liable to be rejected. Only such a document which has a proper foundation in the pleadings still could not be produced in evidence during the trial of the suit, if the party satisfies the court that inspite of due diligence such evidence could not have been produced by him, subject to exceptions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC can be taken on record. Moreover, after the parties have concluded their arguments in the pending Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2015, in law, no application was maintainable and while so, the learned appellate Court has rightly dismissed the applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. 6. The writ petition is dismissed.