JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 15.09.2015, passed in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2008 has been assailed whereby and whereunder the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected and posted the Title Appeal for final argument. 2. Brief facts in narrow compass is that the decree has been passed in the title suit, against which appeal has been preferred being Title Appeal no. 28 of 2008. A title suit has been filed for cancellation of sale deed no. 5515 dated 20.05.1986 and a decree for permanent injunction has been sought to be issued. The suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 29.01.2008 against which appeal has been preferred being Title Appeal no. 28 of 2008. An application has been filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 21.08.2008 seeking leave of the appellate court to adduce the additional evidence i.e. bringing on record a judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1994 dated 17.5.2003 and an agreement for sale dated 15.12.1987. These two documents were necessary for adjudication of the appeal, but the appellate court having taken into consideration the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and also considering the fact that the agreement for sale, which is a document dated 15.12.1987 before filing of the Title Suit No. 23 of 1988 and the judgment of Criminal Appeal no. 197 of 1994, has not accepted these documents as additional evidence. 3. The trial court in spite of providing ample opportunities to the plaintiff to file these documents at the Trial Court, the same has not been filed and as such, at the belated stage without assigning any cogent reason, the same has been sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence and, therefore, the said application has been rejected which has been assailed in the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned senior advocate for the petitioners has submitted that these documents are material documents for proper adjudication of the appeal and not producing the same, should be caused to the other side. Therefore, rejecting the said application by the appellate court is not proper. 4. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned senior advocate for the petitioners has submitted that these documents are material documents for proper adjudication of the appeal and not producing the same, should be caused to the other side. Therefore, rejecting the said application by the appellate court is not proper. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 . 5. This Court has issued a notice to the respondents and in terms thereof learned advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Jha and Jitendra Kumar have appeared on behalf of the respondents. 6. Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer advanced on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that this is not a fit case to be entertained for the reason that the petitioner had been provided ample opportunity even in course of the trial, but these documents have not been brought on record. He submits that the Title Suit is of the year 1988, which has been decided in the year 2008 and at the appellate stage, this application has been filed that too on 11.03.2015, i.e. after lapses of 7 years from the date of institution of the appeal and hence it is nothing, but to delay the process of disposal of the appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and their documents have been appreciated by this Court. This Court finds that it is relevant to discuss the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 without going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order which reads as follows. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and their documents have been appreciated by this Court. This Court finds that it is relevant to discuss the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 without going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order which reads as follows. “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 [414][(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) Whether additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission” 8. The provisions as contained under Order XLI Rule 27 stipulates that 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 [414][(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. 9. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has got power to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence, if such documents are required for adjudication of the suit and upon the satisfactory explanation is given as to why the documents could not be filed in the suit and thereby in appeal. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 (upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance) has dealt with the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 wherein at paragraph-49 read with paragraph 15 to which it has been laid down therein that an appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 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 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. 11. The aforesaid judgment has also been considered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parsotim Thakur V. Lal Mohar Thakur, reported in AIR (1931) PC 143 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as elucidated by Order XLI Rule 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, wherein at paragraph 50, it has been held as under :- “In Parsotim Thakur V. Lal Mohar Thakur it was held: (LW pp. 86-87) “…The provisions of Section 107, Civil Procedure Code, as elucidated by Order 41 Rule 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. 86-87) “…The provisions of Section 107, Civil Procedure Code, as elucidated by Order 41 Rule 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 Rule 27, clause (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 supply 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 Rule 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing and under Rule 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 Court ought to be very sparingly exercised, and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it 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.” 12. In Arjan Singh Vs. Kartar Singh, reported in AIR 1951 SC 193 , it has been held at Paragraphs 7 and 8, as referred herein as: Thus from the above, it is crystal clear that an 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 the 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, the 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 (Para-52). The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court judgment rendered in the case of Klassic Wheels Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and another, reported in AIR (2018) Cal. 276 by taking the same view that the petition made under Order XLI Rule 27 is not to be allowed to fill up lacuna or to patch up the weak points. 13. It is relevant from perusal of the provision as contained under XLI Rule 27 that two conditions are stipulated therein first is that the Court from whose decree the appeal is provided, has produced evidence which ought to have been admitted and second is the party seeking to produce additional evidence is required to disclose that what prevented him in not producing the same document at the time of trial. 14. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is reflected from the impugned order that the trial is of the year 1988 which has been disposed of in the year 2008 and after lapse of more than 7 years an application has been filed under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adduce additional evidence by allowing the petitioner to bring on record the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1994. 15. It is further evident that as per the provision of Sub-clause A Order XLI Rule 27, made for inserting the aforesaid document by way of evidence and as such condition stipulated in Sub-Clause-A. 16. 15. It is further evident that as per the provision of Sub-clause A Order XLI Rule 27, made for inserting the aforesaid document by way of evidence and as such condition stipulated in Sub-Clause-A. 16. The case of the petitioner is not coming under the fold therein so far as the condition as contained in Clause No. (B), the petitioner has not disclosed anywhere that when the document is so old, that is one is of the year 1987 another is of the year 1994 and the same was well within their knowledge and even then has not disclosed as to whether they were having any knowledge with respect to the aforesaid document and if having no knowledge why it has not been produced by taking the exercise of due diligence and in absence thereof the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 as per the condition contained in Sub Clause-(B) is also not coming in the said fold. 17. The trial court after taking into consideration the specific condition as contained in Sub Clause A and B has also considered the fact that the trial has commenced in the year 1988 while the sale agreement is of the year 1987 so there was every opportunity for the petitioner to file this document at the trial court but no endeavors have been taken and therefore rejected the aforesaid application. 18. This Court after going through the findings given by the Trial Court and also considering the condition stipulated under Order XLI rule 27 and the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin (supra) is of the view that although at the appellate stage the document can be accepted by way of additional evidence but only when 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, meaning thereby it is upon the Court to take appropriate decision. 19. It is further evident from the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Parsotim Thakur V. Lal Mohar Thakur (supra) and Arjan Singh Vs. 19. It is further evident from the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Parsotim Thakur V. Lal Mohar Thakur (supra) and Arjan Singh Vs. Kartar Singh (supra) is of the view that the order XLI Rule 27 although enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in circumstances only and only if the conditions laid down in the Rules are failed to exists, the parties are not entitled as of right, to the admission of such evidence. 20. Thus the matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Court and it is to be used sparingly reference needs to be made at the judgment rendered in this regard K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1526 , Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham & Ors. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1008 , Soonda Ram & Anr. Vs. Shri Rameshwarlal & Anr. reported in (1975) 3 SCC 698 and Syed Abdul Khader Vs. Rami Reddy, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 601 . 21. In view of the settled position of law as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court after taking into consideration the fact that the condition stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 since has not been complied with warranting allowing the application filed under the aforesaid provision, the same has been taken into consideration by the trial court and as such this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the aforesaid finding, it also needs to refer that the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by supervisory jurisdiction over and above the order passed by the trial court is having limited scope which can only be exercised in case of the order having without jurisdiction or beyond jurisdiction or contrary to the statutory provision but no such ground is available herein. Therefore this Court is of the view that the order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, accordingly this writ petition fails, hence, dismissed.