JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which the order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-2) passed in Title Appeal No.19 of 2010 by Additional District Judge, Ramgarh is under challenge, whereby and whereunder application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 51 has been rejected. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed Title Appeal No.133 of 2001 for declaration of title over 35 decimals of land in Plot no.432, Khata no.23 of village Ramgarh but according to the petitioners the entire 5.38 acres of land belongs to the petitioners Board which has come into existence in the year 1941. The entire land was given by the Court of Wards in favour of the petitioners (Board) and was vested in the State under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1950, during the continuance of Court of Wards, the Manager, Ramgarh (Court of Wards) granted a lease dated 02.06.1931 to one Dublin University to use the land measuring 5.38 acres in hospital and horticulture purpose, for a period of 15 years on payment of nominal rent and as such the said land did not came in Khas possession of Kamakhya Narayan Singh, the landlord. It is the further case of the petitioners that wife of Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh, Maharani Lalita Rajlaxmi filed T.S. No.08 of 1964 claiming right, title and interest over 5.38 acres of land in which the petitioners-Board was made defendant no.33. In the said suit in paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff has admitted that the land measuring 5.38 acres comprising Plot no.440, 431, 436, 437, 432, 438, 439 including building premises and outhouse were transferred to the Cantonment Board. It was further stated that the suit property along with other lands was given to her by way of Kharposh by Raja Ramgarh. It was further stated that the suit property along with other lands was given to her by way of Kharposh by Raja Ramgarh. It is the further case of the petitioners that prior to T.S No.133 of 2001 one Harinarayan Tiwari has filed T.A. No.09 of 1989 for declaration of right, title and interest over the portion of the suit land which was decreed in favour of Harinarayan Tiwari-plaintiff but T.S. No.18 of 2000 preferred by the petitioners was allowed on 28.06.2006 and the judgment and decree passed in favour of Harinarayan Tiwari in T.S. No.09 of 1989 has been set aside against which the said Harinarayan Tiwari preferred second appeal before this Court being S.A. No.226 of 2006 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2009. The plaintiff in the present suit has admitted that he was one of the witnesses in T.S No.09 of 1989 filed by Harinarayan Tiwari, therefore, has full knowledge about the judgment passed in T.S. No.09 of 1989, T.A. No.18 of 2000 and S.A. No.266 of 2006 but the said T.S No.133 of 2001 was decreed vide judgment dated 01.04.2010 against which the petitioners have preferred title appeal being T.A. No.19 of 2010. In the appeal a petition has been filed by the petitioners under Order XLI Rule 27 praying therein that the certified copy of judgment and decree passed in T.A. No. 18 of 2000 by Additional District Judge, FTC-VI, Hazaribagh and certified copy of the order dated 01.04.2009 passed in S.A No.266 of 2006 by the High Court and decree passed in T.S. No.87 of 2001 by Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribagh may be taken as evidence. 3. Rejoinder to that petition has been filed making objection therein and on appreciating the stand taken by the parties the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 has been rejected by the impugned order which is under scrutiny by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. This Court before examining the legality and propriety given by the appellate court deem it fit and proper to refer Order XLI Rule 27 as also Rule 28: “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. 4. This Court before examining the legality and propriety given by the appellate court deem it fit and proper to refer Order XLI Rule 27 as also Rule 28: “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which out to have been admitted or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the 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 against was passed, or] (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 28. Mode of taking additional evidence.-Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court may either take such evidence, or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate Court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court.” 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.R. Mohan Reddy vs. Net Work Inc represented through MD reported in (2007)14 SCC 257 wherein the following observation has been made: “It is now a trite law that the conditions precedent for application of clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 is different from that of clause (b). In the event the former is to be applied, it would be for the applicant to show that the ingredients or conditions precedent mentioned therein are satisfied. In the event the former is to be applied, it would be for the applicant to show that the ingredients or conditions precedent mentioned therein are satisfied. On the other hand if clause (b) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC is to be taken recourse to, the appellate court is bound to consider the entire evidence on record and come to an independent finding for arriving at a just decision; adduction of additional evidence as has been prayed by the appellant was necessary.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin And Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 wherein the following observation has been made: “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 out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. 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.” In the decision reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 471 reported in Jayamoorthy & Ors. vs. Palani & Ors. the Hon’ble Madrass High Court has held as under: 15. As per the above said rule, the additional evidence can be taken either by the appellate court itself or the appellate court can direct the lower court from which appeal has come or any other court subordinate to it to take evidence and transmit the same to the appellate court for being considered in the appeal. In either case, the appellate court has to indicate in its order allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27, the points on which the additional evidence is to be adduced. A reading of the paragraph extracted from the judgment of the lower appellate court will show that the learned lower appellate judge, either in ignorance of the said provision or in utter disregard for the same, has omitted to follow the procedure. A reading of the paragraph extracted from the judgment of the lower appellate court will show that the learned lower appellate judge, either in ignorance of the said provision or in utter disregard for the same, has omitted to follow the procedure. Therefore, this court does have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the learned lower appellate judge has committed an error in not following the procedure contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27 and Rule 28 CPC in dealing with an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence in the appellate stage. This court also holds that the learned lower appellate judge has committed a grave error in law in simply marking the documents produced by the first respondent herein (appellant before the lower appellate court) giving them exhibit numbers and referring them in the judgment of the lower appellate court. It is obvious that the admissibility, genuineness and reliability of the documents produced along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 were challenged by the opposite parties. That being so, the learned lower appellate judge should not have chosen to simply mark the documents as exhibits on the side of the plaintiff and proceed with the disposal of the appeal. The procedure for taking additional evidence in the appellate stage has not been followed. Hence this court answers both the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants.” 6. On the basis of this position of law, the finding recorded by the trial court has been recorded by this Court wherein it is evident therefrom that the condition which is required to be meted out for additional evidence by the appellate court has not been fulfilled which would also be evident from the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 i.e. no such application has been filed before the trial court which has been rejected as required under the proviso to 1(a) to Order XLI Rule 27 and further due diligence has not been shown as required under the provision of (1) (aa) of Order XLI Rule 27 and therefore the trial court has rejected the same and hence the same requires no interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take aid of the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (b) which shall be dealt with by the appellate court in accordance with law.