JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 03 of 2003, are aggrieved of order dated 22.12.2014 by which their application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008 has been dismissed. 2. Title Suit No. 03 of 2003 was instituted by the petitioners for a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land and, in the alternative, for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land if they are found dispossessed. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the land comprised under Khata No. 60 within Plot No. 447 at village-Tilhaith was recorded as Gair Mazarua in the name of the landlords in the Cadastral Survey of record of rights. After the death of the landlords, finally Uday Prasad son of late Bageshwari Prasad and the widow of Kaushlendra Kishore sold 5.59 acres land comprised under Plot No. 447 within Khata No. 60 by virtue of sale-deed dated 24.05.1988 for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs have pleaded that on an enquiry by the Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector they were found in possession over the suit land by virtue of the sale-deed dated 24.05.1988 and accordingly, the Circle Officer after making enquires and publication of the general Istehar inviting objections ordered mutation in their name. In support of their stand that they have derived valid title by virtue of the sale-deed dated 24.05.1988 and they are in possession over the suit land, the plaintiffs have pleaded that they have been paying rent regularly to the State. There is a reference of a proceeding initiated at the instance of the defendant no. 1, who is the wife of defendant no. 2, vide Case No. 104 of 1994 under Section 144 Cr.P.C which was finally dropped on 28.12.1994. It is pleaded that the defendants in collusion again got a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C initiated against the plaintiffs. In the said proceeding the defendants have laid a claim over 4.85 acres land by virtue of Hukumnama of Sambat 2007. That is the cause of action disclosed by the plaintiffs for instituting the suit. 3. The defendants have filed their written statement asserting that after vesting of Zamindari they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. In the said proceeding the defendants have laid a claim over 4.85 acres land by virtue of Hukumnama of Sambat 2007. That is the cause of action disclosed by the plaintiffs for instituting the suit. 3. The defendants have filed their written statement asserting that after vesting of Zamindari they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. They have pleaded that the ex-landlord namely, Babu Kaushelendra Kishore settled 4.85 acres land comprised under Khata No. 60 including 0.50 decimal land in Plot No. 447 through a written Hukumnana executed in favour of Satiya Devi and the settlee was paying rent to the landlord before vesting of Zamindari. 4. Title Suit No. 03 of 2003 was dismissed on 16.08.2008, primarily on the ground that the suit land being the Government land no title can pass on to the plaintiffs by virtue of the sale-deed dated 24.05.1988 executed by Kishori Devi. The trial Judge, however, did not examine the case set-up by the defendants on merits as the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case (para 12 of the judgment). The plaintiffs have now filed Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008 challenging the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 03 of 2003. 5. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Section XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed by the appellants, who are the petitioners in the writ petition, for adducing the following documents as additional evidence : “(i) original notice of Circle Officer, Hunterganj, (ii) original report of the Circle Officer dated 26.03.2013, and (iii) copy of the Demand Register in the name of Indu Srivastav, Kailash Yadav, Deoraj Yadav, Satiya Gowalin and others.” 6. This application has been dismissed by the appellate Court mainly extracting the decision rendered in “Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another” reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 . 7. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that in the impugned order there is no consideration of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC filed in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008; the impugned order runs into 10 pages out of which 9 pages are extracts from the judgment in Ibrahim Uddin. 7. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that in the impugned order there is no consideration of the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC filed in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008; the impugned order runs into 10 pages out of which 9 pages are extracts from the judgment in Ibrahim Uddin. For dismissing the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has observed as under : “In the aforesaid position of law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid petition filed on behalf of the appellants and the objection taken by the respondents I find that appellants have failed to make out a case under Order XLI Rule 27 for admitting the aforesaid documents on their behalf as additional evidence. Ignorance of law is no defence and no such ground for adducing additional evidence in the appeal. Accordingly, this petition is hereby rejected. Put up for 05.02.2015 for hearing.” 8. Not only the appellate Court has failed to apply the decision in Ibrahim Uddin case in which the Supreme Court has reiterated that the application under XLI Rule 27 CPC can be decided at the stage of final hearing in the appeal, the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 reflects that the application filed by the appellants for leading additional evidence has been dismissed mechanically. In judgment dated 16.08.2008, by which Title Suit No. 03 of 2003 has been dismissed, the trial Judge has observed that it was a novel mode to grab the State land. It was not the case pleaded by the defendants rather, the defendants have also laid a claim over the suit land by virtue of Hukumnama executed by the ex-landlord-Kaushlendra Kishore. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for this reason alone the plaintiffs must be permitted to lead evidence to support their stand as reflected in paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the plaint. Sub-rule 1(b) to Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC provides that for arriving at a just conclusion in the case the appellate Court, irrespective of the prohibition under sub-rule 1 to Rule 27 CPC, may permit additional evidence “for any other substantial cause”. But then, such a decision shall be taken by the appellate Court at the end of the final hearing in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008. But then, such a decision shall be taken by the appellate Court at the end of the final hearing in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2008. Whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the appellants is necessary for a just decision in the case and whether the application filed by the appellants falls under the exceptions carved out under Rule 27, are the issues on which the appellate Court can form its opinion after hearing both the parties on merits of the appeal; of course, in a case in which the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC on the face of the record is found frivolous, it can be dismissed at the threshhold. 9. In view of the apparent error committed by the appellate Court in dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the impugned order dated 22.12.2014 is set-aside. The application dated 01.06.2013 is restored to its original file which shall be decided, if pressed by the appellants, at the end of final hearings in the appeal. 10. I.A No. 3688 of 2018 stands disposed of.