ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder order dated 25.08.2017 passed in Title Appeal No.19 of 2016 has been challenged by which petition filed under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been rejected which was filed for allowing the petitioner to come with the additional evidence. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a suit for specific performance of contract for re-convey was filed being Title Suit No.127 of 2007 for performing the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale of the suit property in question, the same having been decreed in favour of the respondent, whereas title appeal has been filed being Title Appeal No.19 of 2016, a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed for allowing the petitioner to led additional evidence, since the document i.e. the original copy of agreement for sale no.12064 dated 12.12.2012, since according to the petitioner the said document was on record but could not have been marked by the trial Court. The trial Court having considered the scope of provision of Order 41 rule 27 of the C.P.C. has passed the order by rejecting it come to the finding that the condition stipulated under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27, is not attracted. 3. Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity for the reason that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the sale no.12064 dated 12.12.2012 is the relevant document for just and proper adjudication of the issue, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity for the reason that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the sale no.12064 dated 12.12.2012 is the relevant document for just and proper adjudication of the issue, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition as also the impugned order, undisputed fact of this case is that the agreement for sale was executed on 12.12.2002 i.e. sale no.12064 dated 12.12.2012, after receiving consideration amount from one Bibi Noorsha Khatoon, whereby and whereunder, it was aggrieved by the respondent namely Bibi Noorsha Khatoon for re-convey of the said land of the petitioner after receiving the consideration money of Rs.40,000/-within 11.12.2009 but having not performed the same, the suit has been filed being Title Suit No.127 of 2007 but the same was adjudicated on contest by passing the decree against the petitioner against which an appeal was filed before the appellate court being Title Suit No.19 of 2016 and before the appellate court, a petition under Order 41 rule 27 was filed seeking therein a direction from the trial Court to allow the petitioner to led additional evidence to the effect by bringing on record the sale no.12064 dated 12.12.2012 but the same has been rejected against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. This Court thinks it proper before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order to deal with the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. which speaks as follows:- “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. 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) 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 aforesaid provision that the additional evidence can be led and allowed to be led by the appellate court in case of the situation enumerated therein as under Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(a)(aa) or (b) with the condition that whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the appellate court, the court shall record the reasons for its admission. 7. It is evident from the finding recorded by the trial Court that petition has been filed which is not within the fold either under Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(a), since it is not a case of the petitioner that the document sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence has been refused to be admitted as an additional evidence by the trial Court or it is not also the case of the petitioner that the party seeking direction to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence is not within the knowledge rather it is admitted case of the petitioner that the aforesaid agreement on record before the trial Court but it could not have been marked as exhibits, as such, the same has been taken into consideration. So far as the provision under Order 41 Rule 27(b), the appellate court requires any document be produced or to be examined which will enable it to pronounce the judgment, or for any substantial cause, meaning thereby, the appellate court is to come to the subjective satisfaction regarding the relevancy of the aforesaid document but it is evident from the finding contained in the impugned order that the trial Court has found that the case of the petitioner is not come under the fold of provision of Order 41 Rule 27, therefore, the same has been rejected. 8. There is no dispute about the position of law, the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India which confers power upon the High Court of revisable jurisdiction that can be exercised when there is error apparent on the face of record but according to the considered view of this Court, no such error apparent on the face of record has been pointed warranting this Court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition fails, hence dismissed.