ORDER : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Petitioners were defendants in a Suit No. 506 of 1987 filed by the respondent which was dismissed by order dated 15.3.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura. Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9.9.2019 whereby the Additional District Judge, Court No. 06, Mathura has allowed the Application no. 16 C [under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)] filed by the respondent in the Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2013, preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2013. 2. The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are as follows:- (i) Plaintiff/respondent had filed the Original Suit No. 506 of 1987 seeking relief of eviction and possession of suit property from the defendant/petitioner and to give vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants/petitioners to the plaintiffs/respondents. (ii) In the said suit, petitioners/defendants had filed written statement. Survey report was also submitted by the Commissioner. Finally, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, after considering the evidence and other materials on record, rejected the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. (iii) Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed an Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2013, before the Additional District Judge, Mathura. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent/appellant/plaintiff submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC to place certain documents on record as an additional evidence. In the application, it was mentioned that recently it had came into knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff/respondent that one Narain Singh and one Yashvir Singh had already sold the entire area of the plot, therefore, no area was left with those persons to sell it again. It was further mentioned in the application that all the documents were more than 20 years old and it were not earlier in the knowledge of appellant/plaintiff/respondent, and as soon as it came into the knowledge, the said application was filed. 3. Petitioners/defendants had filed reply of the said application wherein the grounds mentioned in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were denied and it was mentioned that the said application was filed with mala fide intention. 4. 3. Petitioners/defendants had filed reply of the said application wherein the grounds mentioned in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were denied and it was mentioned that the said application was filed with mala fide intention. 4. Learned Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 06, Mathura, vide impugned order dated 9.9.2019, allowed the application filed by the respondent/appellant, under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and directed to took documents being document Nos. 1 to 32, on record, on the ground that those documents were essential and relevant in the interest of justice and for the proper judgment of the appeal. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. 5. Shri Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Appellate Court had wrongly allowed the application filed by the respondent/appellant, under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. The Appellate Court had erred by allowing the said application as neither the appellant/respondent was able to establish that despite the exercise of due diligence, the said documents were not within the knowledge of the appellant nor it was proved that even notwithstanding with exercise of due diligence, the appellant/respondent was unable to produce the said documents before the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submitted that neither the appellate court had come to the conclusion that as to whether there was any requirement of such documents which would enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment nor the Appellate Court had mentioned any substantial cause to took additional evidence on record. 6. Learned counsel has cited the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another reported at 2012 (8) SCC 148 and specifically relied upon paragraph no. 25, 26 & 37, which are as follows:- "25. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. (Vide; Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526 ; The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1008 ; Soonda Ram & Anr. v. Rameshwarlal & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 479 ; and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 553 ). 26. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. (Vide: Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed & Ors. v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co., AIR 1978 SC 798 ). 37. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite condition incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stage." (emphasis supplied) 7. Learned counsel also cited the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Basant Kumar Mehrotra (Dead) Through LRs vs. Ram Laxman Janki Virajman Mandir Through its Sarvarakar reported at 2017 122 ALR 795 and relied upon paragraph 12 of the said judgment which is as follows:- "12. From the law noticed herein above, the legal position, as it stands, is that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence (oral or documentary) in the appellate court except on the principles enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which are pari materia clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of the Code. Clause (c), which is pari materia clause (b) of the Code, is applicable where the appellate court requires a document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment, or for any other substantial cause. The expression "to enable it to pronounce judgment" has been interpreted so as to mean that when the appellate court finds itself unable to pronounce judgment owing to a lacuna or defect in the evidence as it stands, it may admit additional evidence. But that does not mean that the clause should be resorted to patch up the weakness of the evidence of the unsuccessful party before the trial court, though, if the court itself requires the evidence to do justice between the parties, it may accept it. The ability to pronounce a judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce a judgment satisfactory to the mind of the court delivering it. But a mere difficulty in coming to a decision is not sufficient for admission of evidence under this rule. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can satisfactorily pronounce judgment in the case. But a mere difficulty in coming to a decision is not sufficient for admission of evidence under this rule. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can satisfactorily pronounce judgment in the case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purposes of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way. The words "or for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires", which is set out at the commencement of the provision, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this clause would apply. Furthermore, if recourse is to be taken to the said clause, that is clause (c), which is pari materia clause (b) of the Code, the appellate court is required to consider the entire evidence on record to come to an independent conclusion whether for arriving at a just decision, adduction of additional evidence, as has been prayed for, is necessary. Therefore, ordinarily, an application seeking adduction of additional evidence by taking recourse to the aforesaid clause is to be considered at the time of hearing by taking a conspectus of the entire evidence on record for drawing satisfaction whether the evidence, the adduction of which is sought, is necessary for pronouncing a judgment." 8. Per contra, Shri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Appellate Court had rightly exercised its discretion to take additional evidence on record, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. in order to impart substantial justice. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant/respondent had specifically mentioned in the application that despite due diligence, those documents were not in the knowledge of the appellant and as soon as it came into his knowledge, an application was filed. The documents are different sale deed which are essential for the proper adjudication of the case and the learned Appellate Court had rightly recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for substantial justice. The learned Appellate Court has also granted liberty to the petitioners/defendants to rebut any inference arising from said documents, therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners. The learned Appellate Court has also granted liberty to the petitioners/defendants to rebut any inference arising from said documents, therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners. The documents are sale deeds which goes to the root of the case and are essential for proper adjudication of the appeal and to pronounce judgment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. For the purpose of proper adjudication of the present petition, it is essential to reproduce the relevant provision of the Civil Procedure Code, which is Order 41 Rule 27. 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. 11. The scope of the Order 41 Rule 27 had got attention of Supreme Court in various cases. In one of the leading case Ibrahim Uddin (Supra), the scope of these provisions were dealt in detail. The Supreme Court has held in paragraph nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 and finally concluded in paragraph no. 37 that:- 27. Under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. 37 that:- 27. Under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence. [Vide: Lala Pancham & Ors. (supra)]. 28. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 ; and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101 ). 29. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 30. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 30. The words "for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g., when evidence has been taken by the lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment. 31. Whenever the appellate Court admits additional evidence it should record its reasons for doing so. (Sub-rule 2). It is a salutary provision which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another reason of this requirement is that, where a further appeal lies from the decision, the record of reasons will be useful and necessary for the Court of further appeal to see, if the discretion under this rule has been properly exercised by the Court below. The omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect. But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such evidence can be justified under the rule. 32. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 33. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 34. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 35. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 36. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 37. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 37. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite condition incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stage." (emphasis supplied) 12. The Apex Court, in the matter of Uttaradi Mutt vs. Raghuvendra Swamy Mutt reported at 2018 (10) SCC 484 has followed the earlier judgment of Ibrahim Uddin (Supra) and held in para 8 & 9 that:- "8. According to the appellant, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the discretion exercised by the First Appellate Court in dismissing the three applications for permission to produce additional evidence preferred by the respondent/defendant. Furthermore, the reasons weighed with the High Court, in no case, satisfied the test for production of additional evidence predicated in Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. 9. This objection need not detain us as we are of the considered opinion that the First Appellate Court would have been within its jurisdiction to permit the party to the proceedings to produce additional evidence before it for full, complete and effectual adjudication of the proceedings. The purport of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC has been considered by this Court in Union of India (supra). The purport of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC has been considered by this Court in Union of India (supra). The Court adverted to the exposition made in earlier decisions of the Court from paragraphs 36 to 46 and summed up the proposition in paragraphs 47 and 48 as under: "47. Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. 48. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that an application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stage." (emphasis supplied) 13. From the abovementioned judgments, it is absolutely clear that in order to take additional evidence on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, the Appellate Court is required specifically came to the conclusion that:- (a) The Court, whose order is under Appeal, has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted (this is not relevant for the purpose of present case). (b) The party seeking to produce additional evidence must establish that:- (i) Notwithstanding, the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge (relevant for the purpose of present case) or; (ii) The Appellate Court required :- (a) any document to be produced or; (b) any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial clause (relevant for the purpose of present case). 14. In order to decide whether the appellant/respondent herein, had able to establish that despite exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge, I have to scrutinize the contents of the application in order to ascertain whether the contents of the application satisfy the said requirement. In the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, it was stated that:- ^^ gky gh esa vihykFkhZ & oknh ds laKku esa ;g rF; vk;k fd ukjk;u flag o ;'kohj flag }kjk mu [kljk uacjku dh dqy Hkwfe ls vf/kd Hkwfe ds foØ; i= igys gh fu"ikfnr fd;s tk pqds FksA blls igys vihykFkhZ&oknh dks bu foØ;i=ksa ds lEcU/k esa iwjh tkudkjh ugha Fkh] vr% budh Áekf.kr Áfrfyfi;kWa ÁkIr ugha dh tk ldh FkhA** 15. The appellant/respondent had not stated in the application that how these documents came into his knowledge? What was the source of this information? This application had also not disclosed what exercise the appellant/respondent had undertaken that these documents were relevant for the purpose of the present case. In my considered opinion, the petitioner had failed to satisfy the requirement of exercise of due diligence as mentioned in the Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 16. The next requirement is to scrutinize whether the Appellate Court had come to the reasoned conclusion that these documents were required to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or these documents were required by the Appellate Court for any other substantial cause. 17. I have scrutinized the impugned order. 16. The next requirement is to scrutinize whether the Appellate Court had come to the reasoned conclusion that these documents were required to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or these documents were required by the Appellate Court for any other substantial cause. 17. I have scrutinized the impugned order. The Appellate Court while allowing the application had come to the conclusion that:- ^^mijksDr dfFkr cSukek dks i=koyh dk Hkkx cuk;s tkus ls fopkj.k ds Lrj ds lk{; dh fdlh deh dh iwfrZ ugha gksrh Árhr gks jgh gSA ;gkWa ;g mn/k`r djuk mfpr gS fd mijksDr dfFkr cSukek dk Hkkxhnkj vihykFkhZ ugha jgk gSA dfFkr cSukes dqy 32 lu 1981 esa fu"ikfnr fd;s x;s FksA ,sls n'kk esa mijksDr cSukeksa dk ,d lkFk ladyu fd;k tkuk lEHko gksus ds ckjs esa mi/kkj.kk ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA nLrkostksa dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus ls ekeys dks u;s fljs ls [kqyus dk fdlh rF; dk ÁdVu ugha Árhr gks jgk gSA** blh Ádkj mijksDr nLrkostksa ds ÁdVhdj.k ls lk{; dh fjDrrk dh iwfrZ dk Hkh ÁdVu gksdj lE;d U;k; ds rF; dk ÁdVu gksus ds vk/kkj ij U;k; fgr esa U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igWaqph gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 18. The abovementioned reasons mentioned in the impugned order are not enough for the Appellate Court to take additional evidence on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. In Ibrahiminuddin (Supra), the Apex Court has stated in paragraph 29 that mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal and further in paragraph no. 30 that:- "30. The words "for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g., when evidence has been taken by the lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment." 19. The Appellate Court had not given any substantial reason or reasons in support of its order to allow additional evidence to be taken on record at the appeal stage. The impugned order has been passed in very curiously manner without considering the scope of the Order 41 Rule 27 and without giving any specific reason. The Appellate Court had not given any substantial reason or reasons in support of its order to allow additional evidence to be taken on record at the appeal stage. The impugned order has been passed in very curiously manner without considering the scope of the Order 41 Rule 27 and without giving any specific reason. The Appellate Court had wrongly allowed the application, filed by the respondent/appellant. 20. In view of the above, I am unable to uphold the impugned order, and therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is bereft of merit, therefore, is liable to be set aside and, is accordingly, set aside. 21. The present petition is allowed and the Appellate Court is directed to proceed with the appeal and decide expeditiously on merits without taking additional evidence on record. 22. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.