JUDGMENT N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. The manner of treatment to, and approach towards application filed under Order XLI -- 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at the appellate stage by the appellate court, was stated by the Apex Court in Malyalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala thus, "... ... ... when an application for reception of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC was filed by the parties, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. The above principle has been reiterated by this Court in Jatinder Singh & Another. v. Mehar Singh and Others., (2009) AIR SC 354 and Shyam Gopal Bindal and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2010) 2 SCC 316 : AIR 2010 SC 690 ." (Para 10) 1.1 It was then held, "If any petition is filed under Order 41, Rule 27 in an appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to consider at the time of hearing the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing in the issues involved. It is trite to observe that under Order 41, Rule 27, additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial Court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted; (b) whether the evidence sought to be adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; (c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature." (Para 11) 2. By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge order dated 01st July, 2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch, below application Exh.29 dismissing the application for production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2.1 Heard la Mr.Kashyap Joshi for the pt and learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta for the respondent. 3. The petitioners herein are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.193 of 1997 which was instituted by the respondent - plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction as well as for possession in respect of land bearing Survey No.82/1/2 at Village Kasakpatti, District Bharuch. 3. The petitioners herein are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.193 of 1997 which was instituted by the respondent - plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction as well as for possession in respect of land bearing Survey No.82/1/2 at Village Kasakpatti, District Bharuch. The court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch by judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2006 partially allowed the Suit declaring that plaintiff was exclusive owner of the suit property, however the relief of injunction and for possession was denied. 3.1 The petitioners preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006 against the said judgment and decree. In that appeal proceedings application Exh.29 was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to produce additional evidence. On 01st July, 2017 the impugned order was passed rejecting the prayer. List of documents sought to be produced was annexed with Exh.29. 3.2 It appears that proceedings under the Tenancy Act were taken out in respect of the suit land. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal passed order dated 21st October, 2014 which was challenged by the original plaintiff the respondent herein by filing Special Civil Application No.2743 of 2015 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said petition. The District Court was directed to decide the appeal. It appears that the petitioners moved aforesaid application Exh.29 thereafter by which following documents were sought to be produced - (i) Certified copy of Map of Village Kasakpatti dated 22nd April, 2015; (ii) certified copy of Sheet No.73 dated 05th May, 2015; (iii) certified copy of Map of Mouje Kasakpatti dated 26th August, 2015; (iv) copy of Map from District Survey Office, Bharuch dated 09th June, 1997; (v) Copy of relevant portion of the Map dated 09th June, 1997; (vi) true copies of Revenue Record 7 X 12 extracts printed on 14th July, 2011 and 11th May, 2015. 4. According to submission of learned advocate for the petitioners, the aforesaid documents could not be produced earlier despite due diligence and that they were relevant documents. He submitted that the court committed an error in refusing to grant the production of said additional evidence. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioners were trying to fill up lacuna in their case which could not be allowed in the guise of additional evidences. 5. He submitted that the court committed an error in refusing to grant the production of said additional evidence. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioners were trying to fill up lacuna in their case which could not be allowed in the guise of additional evidences. 5. What was held by the Supreme Court in Malayamal Plantations Ltd. was reaffirmed. In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , the Supreme Court with elaboration considered the scope and applicability of provisions of Order XLI Rule 27. In that it also considered the aspect as to at what stage the application under Order XLI Rule 27 could be considered especially at the appellate stage. The relevant paragraphs from the said are reproduced herein under, "Stage of Consideration : 49. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find 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. (Vide: Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Others., (1951) AIR SC 193; and Natha Singh and Others. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab and Others., (1976) AIR SC 1053). 50. In Parsotim Thakur and Others. v. Lal Mohar Thakur and Others., (1931) AIR PC 143, it was held: "The provisions of S.107 as elucidated by O.41, R.27 are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the Court of appeal. Under R.27, Cl. v. Lal Mohar Thakur and Others., (1931) AIR PC 143, it was held: "The provisions of S.107 as elucidated by O.41, R.27 are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the Court of appeal. Under R.27, Cl. (1) (b) it is only where the appellate Court "requires" it (i.e. finds it needful). 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 apply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands. Wherever the Court adopts this procedure it is bound by R. 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing, and under R.29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. The power so conferred upon the Court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case "(See also: Indirajit Pratab Sahi v. Amar Singh, (1923) AIR PC 128) 51. In Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Others., this Court held: "If the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it was non-existent. The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17.8.1942. The appeal was heard on 24.4.1942. There was thus no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court required to be filled up for pronouncing the judgment" 52. The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17.8.1942. The appeal was heard on 24.4.1942. There was thus no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court required to be filled up for pronouncing the judgment" 52. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored." 5.1 Thus, it is clear from the above pronouncements of the Apex Court that the application for taking additional evidence when made at the appellate stage, it is to be considered at the stage after appreciation of the evidence on record. In another words, it is to be kept pending till the hearing of the appeal so that the appellate court could consider at the time of deciding appeal as to whether the additional evidence sought to be produced are necessary to be considered and are relevant. The discretion to allow or reject the additional evidence could be judicially exercised only at the stage of finally considering the appeal. In view of the above position clearly emerging from Ibrahim Uddin learned Principal District Judge, Bharuch, ought not to have rejected the applications. Therefore, in view of law laid down in Malyalam Plantations Ltd. and in Ibrahim Uddin, learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch, committed an error in rejecting the application Exh.29 of the petitioners. 6. The application below Exh.29 was under Order XLI Rule 27 for additional evidence filed in the appeal proceedings and therefore was required to be considered at the time of deciding the appeal. 6. The application below Exh.29 was under Order XLI Rule 27 for additional evidence filed in the appeal proceedings and therefore was required to be considered at the time of deciding the appeal. It is, therefore, for the court below to consider and take decision one way or other as to the applicability of the same which shall be at the time of deciding the appeal. The appeal shall be decided with reference to the conclusion which the court below may arrive at in respect of Exh.29 application. The court below shall take a decision as per the mandate of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27, CPC. 6.1 In this view of the matter, this Court refrains from going into the merits of the case of the both the sides and in respect of the merits of the material placed and the nature of additional evidence. 7. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 01st July, 2017 passed below Exh.29 in Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 2006 is hereby set aside. Application Exh.29 shall remain alive to be considered in accordance with law by learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch, at the time of final stage of hearing of the appeal in question as directed above. The petition stands allowed accordingly.