ORDER : 1. None appears for the parties. 2. The order dated 04.03.2016 passed in Title Appeal No.05 of 2015 passed by District Judge, Simdega is under challenge whereby and whereunder the petition dated 21.12.2015 filed under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 3. The fact of the case is that the partition suit has been filed being Partition Suit No.15 of 2013 for partition of the land under Khata No.22, 23, 24, 44, 45, 46, 47, 199 & 200 including several other plots measuring a total area of 65.67 acres of Mouja Chandrimunda Village-Bangaon, Korengatoli, P.S. Kurdeg, District Simdega. 4. In the aforesaid partition suit, the decree has been passed which has been challenged in Title Appeal No.05 of 2015 and the judgment debtor, the petitioner has filed a petition on 21.12.2015 under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. for adducing additional evidence but the same has been rejected, therefore the instant writ petition has been filed under the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. This Court after having gone across the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the findings recorded in the impugned order, this Court thinks it fit and proper to first go through the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 which reads hereunder as : “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.” 6. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” 6. It is evident from the statutory provision as referred hereinabove and the judgment with respect to consideration of the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 that the said provision provides that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the trial court except the conditions as enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (a), (aa) & (b). 7. It transpires from the impugned order that the requirement as stipulated under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (a) & (aa) has not been found to be attracted since it is not the case of the petitioners that a proper application has been filed before the trial Court which has been rejected, it also does not transpires from the petition dated 21.12.2015 that what prevented the petitioners in not adducing the said evidence in course of the trial by showing the due diligence in this regard but having not found to be mentioned in the petition and as such the trial Court has come to the conscious finding that the condition as enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (a) & (aa) are not being followed, so far as the condition stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (b) is concerned, it is up to trial Court to take into consideration the aforesaid provision. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered by 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.” 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 Madras 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.” 8. So far the case in hand is concerned the conditions as stipulated Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (a) & (aa) has not been complied with which mandatorily to be fulfilled as per the provision of law as also the authentative pronouncement as referred. 9. In view of the authoritative pronouncement referred hereinabove, this Court after considering the position of law as also the findings recorded in the impugned order, is of the view that the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.