ORDER : The writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and where under order dated 04.04.2017 passed in Title Appeal No.70 of 2015, by which, petition under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for allowing the petitioner to file additional evidence at the appellate stage, has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that a suit for eviction being Title (Eviction) Suit No.50 of 2008, has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner before the Munsif, Dhanbad praying therein a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default in making payment of rent under the provision of Section 11(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2001, by which, suit was dismissed, against which, title appeal has been preferred being Title Appeal No.70 of 2015 before the District Judge, Dhanbad, at this stage, a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. and under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for tendering the certified copy of the assessment list of the municipality and the certified copy of lease deed by way of additional evidence has been sought to be incorporated but the same, has been rejected vide order dated 04.04.2017, against which, the present writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The ground as has been agitated in assailing the order dated 04.04.2017 that the said document is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue, since the appeal is in continuation with the original proceeding, therefore, the documents have been incorporated by allowing the said petition for further adjudication of the suit but having not done so, illegality has been committed by the trial Court by passing the order impugned. 4. 4. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going across the factual aspect involved in this case as also looking to the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., whereby and where under, the provision has been made to adduce the additional evidence on the following grounds i.e.:- (a) Whether the Court from which degree 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 in spite of exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge (b) The appellate court required any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. (c) The appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. 5. Therefore, only if the above condition would arise, the additional evidence is directed to be incorporated by the trial Court under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. but from perusal of the impugned order it appears that no such ground has been agitated, save and except the stand that the document is a public document, therefore, it may be incorporated. It is evident from the impugned order that the petitioner/defendant to the title suit although has filed written statement but in support of that, no document was filed and at the stage of appeal, certain document has been sought to be incorporated but without assigning any reason and without having any ground to incorporate the additional evidence as required under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27. 6. The issue with respect to the applicability of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. has been dealt with by 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. 7. 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. …..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. …. 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.” 8. 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/in-executable 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) Calcutta 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. 9. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and another, reported in AIR (2018) Calcutta 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. 9. 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. 10. In view of such proposition of law and looking to the factual aspect involved in this case as also considering the reason assigned in the impugned order, is not in nature warranting any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view thereof, this writ petition fails, accordingly, dismissed.