JUDGMENT : 1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2019. 2. The short facts leading to this Second Appeal are as under : 2.1 The appellant-original defendant has filed Special Civil Suit No.168 of 2001 before the 6th Additional Civil Judge, Junagadh and prayed that the present appellant has to pay the due amount towards the bill raised by the respondent-plaintiff for the work completed for the paving of road alongwith the deposit amount. After conclusion of the said suit, learned 6th Additional Civil Judge, Junagadh by judgment and decree dated 22.2.2011 has partly allowed the Special Civil Suit No. 168 of 2001 and directed to pay the deposit amount of Rs.47,252/- alongwith 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of suit. The said judgment was challenged before the 4th Additional District Judge, Junagadh wherein, learned Judge rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2.2 Thereafter, the appellant also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 (1)(aa) of Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) for production of the additional documents. It is the case of the appellant that the said document is material document with regard to payment of deposit of amount of Rs.47,220/- which amount was also to be paid to the respondent. The District Court has dealt with the said application in the judgment and it has observed in the judgment that the appellant has failed to establish any legal and valid ground to allow this application. It is further observed that it is the negligence on the part of the appellant and they have not taken proper care to produce the documents at the time of trial. 3. At the time of admission of this appeal, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that there is substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and the Appellate Court has erred in exercising jurisdiction vested upon it in not allowing the production of the documents under Order XLI Rule 27 (1)(aa) of CPC. 3.1 In support of his submission, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy reported in 1994 SCC (4) 659, wherein, it is observed in paragraph 4 as under : “4. 3.1 In support of his submission, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy reported in 1994 SCC (4) 659, wherein, it is observed in paragraph 4 as under : “4. Order 13, Rule 1 provides thus "1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs." It is clear from its bare reading that the parties or their counsel shall be required to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power which they intend to rely on to establish their right along with pleadings or before settlement of the issues. The court is enjoined under sub-rule (2) to receive such documents provided they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in the prescribed form. If they are not in the party's possession or custody, it shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone the delay in filing them. The explanation for delay is not as rigorous as one filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the possession or custody of the appellants, but they have obtained certified copies from the Revenue Authorities and sought to be produced. It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 4 1, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 4 1, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents. The High Court also committed the same error in not considering the effect in this behalf in the right perspective. The orders are accordingly set aside and the delay in filing the documents is condoned. The trial court is directed to receive the documents, give an opportunity to the parties to prove the documents and if necessary, opportunity to the respondent to rebut the same and then dispose of the reference according to law.” 4. After considering the submission of learned advocate for the appellant and on perusal of record, it would be fruitful to refer Order-XLI Rule27(1) (aa) of CPC, which lays as thus:- “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 exam med.” 5. From the plain reading of the said Rule, it is clear that it is a party who is seeking production of additional evidence so as to establish that the documents cannot be produced though he has exercised a due deligence or evidence was not within his knowledge or he could not produce after exercise of due deligence. Such type of pleadings is missing in the application before the District Court which is at Annexure “C” of this paper book. 6. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that it was negligence on the part of the appellant. In this regard, it would be fruitful to refer the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) through LRS. And another versus Shivnath and others, reported in 2019 (6) SCC 82 , wherein it is observed as under : “28. Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, production of additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, is permitted only under three circumstances which are: (I) Where the trial Court had refused to admit the evidence though it ought to have been admitted; (II) the evidence was not available to the party despite exercise of due diligence; and (III) the appellate Court required the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. An application for production of additional evidence cannot be allowed if the appellant was not diligent in producing the relevant documents in the lower court. However, in the interest of justice and when satisfactory reasons are given, court can receive additional documents. 29. In Union of India v. Ibrahim & Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , this Court held as under:“ 36. 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 41 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, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. 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, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the 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 K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 SC 1526 , Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham AIR 1965 SC 1008 , Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal (1975) 3 SCC 698 and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy (1979) 2 SCC 601 .)” (emphasis supplied) 6.1 Judicial discretion can be exercised by a Court only when there are two or more possible lawful solutions. In any event, Courts cannot give any direction contrary to the Statute or Rules made thereunder in exercise of judicial discretion. It will be useful to reproduce from Judicial Discretion (1989) by Aharon Barak which is as follows: “Discretion assumes the freedom to choose among several lawful alternatives. Therefore, discretion does not exist when there is but one lawful option. In this situation, the judge is required to select that option and has no freedom of choice. No discretion is involved in the choice between a lawful act and an unlawful act. The judge must choose the lawful act, and he is precluded from choosing the unlawful act. Discretion, on the other hand, assumes the lack of an obligation to choose one particular possibility among several.” 7. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the Appellate Court has exercised its discretion properly and the appellant was not entitled, as of right, admission of the documents in question and the parties have not taken due deligence to produce it before the trial Court. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9. It would be open for the appellant Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action against the officer who had not produced the said documents at the right time before the trial Court. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9. It would be open for the appellant Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action against the officer who had not produced the said documents at the right time before the trial Court. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.