ORDER : 1. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned AJC-XV, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2018 arising out of judgment dated 30.07.2018 and decree dated 14.08.2018 passed in Title Suit No. 90 of 2014 whereby and where under, the appellate court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27(aa) & (b) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for production of certified copy of plaint and order sheet of one earlier suit earlier filed by respondent no. 1 against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner Kartik Singh Munda is the defendant no.1in earlier Title Suit No. 90 of 2014 filed by Plaintiff Lakhimani Devi (OP no.1) for cancellation of adoption deed which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Against the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2018 in which the petition for adducing additional evidence was filed which has been rejected against which the present petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner sought to adduce into evidence the certified copy of the plaint of earlier Title Suit No. 104 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 for the same cause of action was dismissed for non-prosecution and had attained finality. These facts had been specifically pleaded in para-21 of the written statement. It was for this reason that the petitioner/appellant filed the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for adducing into evidence the plaint of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff which has been rejected. Further, the earlier plaint was also required to bring inconsistency and contradiction in the averment made in both the suits ie TS104/12 and TS 90/12. Reliance has been placed on Jayaramdas & Sons v. Mirza Rafatullah Baig, (2004) 10 SCC 507 : 9. As already pointed out, both the sets of documents are certified copies of public documents. The appellants would not ordinarily suspect or doubt the documents where the certified copies of public documents were secured from the public officer having the custody of such public documents. As already pointed out, both the sets of documents are certified copies of public documents. The appellants would not ordinarily suspect or doubt the documents where the certified copies of public documents were secured from the public officer having the custody of such public documents. It is only when it came to their knowledge that the certified copies were at variance with the originals or were not complete copies that they thought of securing another set of certified copies and then seeking leave of the court for producing the certified copies obtained by them as an additional evidence in the appellate court. The case of the appellants for production of additional evidence falls within clause (aa) of sub-rule (1), abovesaid. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 submits that earlier the suit was dismissed for default and the present case is not maintainable and will be hit by res-judicata. Reliance has been placed on State of U.P. v. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal, (2009) 1 SCC 689 which involved a case where the suit had been dismissed not on merit but on technical ground. So far the suit where the State was a party and amendments were made, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. But the same was not dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8. Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC read as follows: “8. Procedure where defendant only appears.—Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder. 9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.—(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. 9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.—(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with suit. (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.” Therefore, Order 9 Rule 9 cannot be said to be applicable. The dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution was not a decision on merit. Consequently, the said order cannot operate as res judicata. 5. While admitting into evidence any document three factors need to be kept in mind. The first is the admissibility depending on the relevancy and the stage of trial or appeal. The court has to see whether they are within the pleadings and relevant to the issues at hand. Further, whether they’re being produced before the court at the appropriate stage and if not whether a necessary leave has been obtained by the court or not. Secondly, if the document in question is admissible into evidence, then the question of its formal proof arises depending on the nature of the document. Thirdly, after it has been duly proved the legal effect of the decree document is to be considered while appreciating it. 6. The short question that falls for consideration at this stage is whether the document in question can be admitted as additional evidence at the appellate stage in view of the provision of law as set out under O41 R 27? 7. It has been held in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 Order 41 Rule 27 CPC 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 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 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. 8. The learned court below has dismissed the petition for adducing the said document as additional evidence for the reason that it is an admitted position that the earlier suit being T.S. No.104 of 2012 was dismissed for default. The trial court had framed specific issue no.9, whether the suit was hopelessly barred by principle of res judicata? This the issue was decided against the defendant. It was for this reason that the learned appellate court rejected the petition for additional evidence. 9. From the above it is manifest that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence to bring it on record the said document at the stage of trial and further the said document had no direct bearing on the instant case. It was for these reasons that the petition had been rejected. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The civil miscellaneous petition accordingly stands dismissed.