JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Since the controversy involved in the writ petitions are identical, as such, they are being disposed of together by this common judgement. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a plaintiff in a Suit, which was instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun as back as on 12th July 2007 being Suit No. 282 of 2007, Smt. Pushpa Devi and another v. Sawyambar Dutt Amoli and another, wherein the plaintiff (petitioner herein) has sought the relief with regard to the declaration of a Will dated 5th January 2004, executed by the late Mr. Manik Lal Amoli, as to be declared as a void and a fraudulent document, as it was not executed in accordance with his intention and wishes of late Mr. Manik Lal Amoli and or the purpose for which he sought it to be executed. The relevant part of the prayer as sought in the Suit in question is quoted hereunder:- ß¼d½ bl vk'k; dh ?kks'k.kkRed vkKfIr ikfjr dh tkos fd rFkkdfFkr olh;r fnukad 05-01-2004 Loñ Jh ekf.kd yky veksyh }kjk LosPNk ls fu"ikfnr olh;r ugha gS vkSj rFkkdfFkr olh;r fu"iknu dh fnukad ls gh 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh gS vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij izfroknhx.k Jh ekf.kd yky veksyh dh e`R;q mijkar dksbZ Dysel ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSaA ¼[k½ okn dk leLr O;; oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼x½ mijksDr izfrdkjksa ds vfrfjDr vFkok ,o esa vU; dksbZ izfrdkj tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; okn dh ifjfLFkr;ksa esa mfpr le>s oknhx.k dks fnyk;k tkosA** 3. Before venturing further, it would be relevant to point out that the plaintiff at the time of giving challenge to the said Will of Mr. Manik Lal Amoli, herself has pleaded in the suit being Suit No. 282 of 2007, Smt. Pushpa Devi Amoli and another v. Sh. Swayambar Dutt Amoli and another, with regard to the deed, which is said to have been executed in favour of her by her late husband Mr. Manil Lal Amoli. Based on an evidence which was led by the parties, the suit proceeded and it was ultimately dismissed by the judgement dated 31st May 2014 by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun. 4. The said judgement was put to challenge in an Appeal by the plaintiff, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2014, Smt. Pushpa Devi Amoli v. Sh. Swayambar Dutt & others. 4. The said judgement was put to challenge in an Appeal by the plaintiff, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2014, Smt. Pushpa Devi Amoli v. Sh. Swayambar Dutt & others. During the pendency of the Suit, the plaintiff had moved in application, invoking the provisions contained Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, which reads as under:- “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 ought 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) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission." 5. Principally, the application, which was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC on 31st October 2014 had sought to bring on record as many as eight documents, and precisely, the ground which was raised was: (1) the certified copy of the documents, since those were the public document, were not available to the appellant. (2) The documents Nos. 6 and 7 were not in possession and (3) document No. 8 was obtained plaintiff/appellant after the decision of the suit was rendered on 31.05.2014. 6. (2) The documents Nos. 6 and 7 were not in possession and (3) document No. 8 was obtained plaintiff/appellant after the decision of the suit was rendered on 31.05.2014. 6. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(aa) of CPC, it has provided that though the party to the proceedings are not permitted to lead evidence at an appellate stage but it can place documents on record subject to the exception, which has been carved out under sub Clause (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC , which makes it incumbent that an applicant to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, will have to establish by pleading in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC that despite of due diligence, the evidence sought to be brought on record at an appellate stage, could not be placed before the trial Court for its consideration. 7. Even as per the amendment, which was brought by the Allahabad High Court, it was confined to clause (b) with regard to the prerogative to be exercised by the Court for entertaining an additional evidence, because this case is not falling under the exception carved out under clause (b) of sub Rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC. As far as the application pertaining to bringing on record the document Nos. 1 to 5, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that it was a public document. And as soon as this pleading comes to the effect that the document sought to be brought on record that document Nos. 1 to 5 is the public document then it would be presumed that the plaintiff had a knowledge of those documents as it was falling to be a document in public domain, and at the time when the suit was itself pending consideration and if those public documents were not placed on record before the trial Court, it would infer that the plaintiff has not participated in the proceedings with due diligence and as such the explanation which has been carved out by Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, will not be attracted to those documents on record. 8. The second reason to bring the document Nos. 8. The second reason to bring the document Nos. 6 and 7 on record was that he has recently obtained the possession and knowledge of it, this Court is of the view that the reason assigned therein that it was received recently is absolutely a vague plea, which has been taken and it will not fall to be satisfying the conditions of establishing the fact as to when and under what circumstances and how the appellant has been able to get possession and knowledge of the said documents, which has been sought to be placed on record by filing of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The only exception, which could be attracted to bring a document on record would be with regards to a document, which itself was made available after the decision of the suit i.e. the FSL Report dated 2nd July 2014. 9. Apparently, this document with regards to the examination of signatures of late Mr. Manik Lal Amoli was provided by the Forensic Bureau on an identification made only on 2nd July 2014, it's quite obviously that it was after the dismissal of the Suit on 31st May 2014, and it goes without saying that obviously the said document could not be produced in the suit because it was a report of a later stage on 2nd July 2014. However, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC i.e. dated 31st October 2014, came up for consideration before the Appellate Court on 15th January 2015, and the same has been dismissed by an order dated 15th October 2016, holding thereof that the document, which was being sought to be brought on record by virtue of an application paper number 22 (ga), that is, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were not the documents which do not fall to be within the exception clauses, as provided under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, as most of the document which was sought to be placed on record since being a public document it would be deemed that it was in the knowledge of the plaintiff with regards to the documents which he pleads that he got possession of them later on which was fact which were not established by facts and pleading, as to when and in what manner the said document was brought to the knowledge or in possession of the plaintiff at a later stage and its source from where she got it, hence, the said reasons given in para 3 would be treated as to be vague for the purposes of consideration of application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 10. The only exception, which this Court is of the view that the latitude, which could be granted to the plaintiff to place a document on record would be in relation to the FSL Report dated 2nd July 2014, which itself has been appended with the writ petition (page 79). Since the said document itself was endorsed at a date subsequent to the decision of the suit, it would be falling to be a document being under the exception clause (aa) of sub Rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC. Hence, it is the only this document which was created later on i.e. on 2nd July 2014, which, if at all could be permitted to be brought on record in the Appeal by invoking the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, because the said document being subsequent in time requires a consideration in the proceedings if at all the plaintiff thinks it that it will be having any bearing in the decision making process of the First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Hence, this application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC as filed by plaintiff is allowed only to the extent, that the said report of the FSL dated 2nd July 2014, which is being permitted to brought on record of appeal, consequently, the writ petition succeeds only partly, only with regards to the part of bringing the FSL Report on record and for the remaining documents, which were sought to be placed on record, the order dated 15th October 2015, rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC stands confirmed. 12. An apprehension which has been expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent is to the effect that any direction given by this Court with regard to placing on record the FSL report dated 2nd July 2014, may not be construed that it has been taken an admission of document for the purposes of its consideration on merits of the matter taking a document on record by invoking exception clause under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, it goes without saying that it has to undergo the test of evidence by the Appellate Court to be adduced by the parties and it is only when the Appellate Court is satisfied with regard to the mode of evidence, produced by the parties and its necessity then only the document i.e. the FSL Report dated 2nd July 2014, which has been permitted to be taken on record would be read in evidence. 13. In that view of the matter, while confirming the order of rejection in relation to other documents, the writ petition is only allowed to the extent that the Appellate Court will only place on record the documents i.e. FSL Report dated 2nd July 2014, and consider it independently on its own merits after giving an apparently to the respondents for rebuttal of the documents. 14. Subject to the above observation, the writ petitions stand partly allowed. However, there would be no order as to costs.