JUDGMENT : In both writ petitions, petitioner has challenged rejection of his application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Since common question of fact and law are involved in both writ petitions, therefore these are being decided together. 2. In the year 2011, two suits were filed by the respondents against the petitioner which were decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 30.3.2016. However, on petitioner’s appeal, judgment and decree passed in both the suits were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court. Upon remand of the matter, learned Trial Court again decreed both the suits vide judgment and order dated 2.9.2021. Petitioner challenged the judgment and decree passed in both the suits by filing Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2021. In both the appeals, petitioner filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence including a Will dated 30.8.2010, alleged to have been executed by Swami Hansraji Maharaj in favour of the petitioner. By a common order dated 27.4.2022, learned District Judge rejected the said applications filed by the petitioner. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. The impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal is on record as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Learned Trial Court has considered the matter in great details and has held that the prayer made by the petitioner does not fall under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Rule 27(1) of Order 41 CPC. Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC is reproduced below for ready reference : “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. Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC is reproduced below for ready reference : “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.” 4. A perusal of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC reveals that production of additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, at the appellate stage is permitted only under three circumstances, namely, (i) where the Trial Court has refused to admit the evidence though it ought to have admitted it, or (ii) the evidence was not available to the party despite exercise of due diligence, or (iii) the Appellate Court required the additional evidence so as to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath, reported in 2019 (6) SCC 82 , has held that an application for production of additional evidence cannot be allowed if the appellant was not diligent in producing the relevant document in the lower court, although the Court can receive additional evidence in the interest of justice when satisfactory reasons are given. 6. In the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. However, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. Relevant extract of said judgment are reproduced below : “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 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, 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 & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526 ; The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1008 ; Soonda Ram & Anr. v. Rameshwaralal & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 479 ; and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 553 ). 37. 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 ). 40. 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. 47. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 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.” 7. Before learned District Judge, petitioner had contended that his prayer for production of additional evidence is referable to Clause (a) of Rule 27(1) of Order 41 CPC as the Trial Court refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted. Learned District Judge has held that Clause (a) of Rule 27(1) of Order 41 CPC has no application to the case as the learned Trial Court has not refused to admit the evidence, i.e. the original Will. To the contrary, despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to produce the original Will on record. Reference has been made to the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Trial Court. Perusal of the said order indicates that a number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce the original Will and despite written undertaking submitted by him to produce the original Will, he did not submit the same. Therefore, his opportunity to produce the Will was closed by the Trial Court vide order dated 4.12.2019. Thus, learned District Judge has held that the petitioner himself is responsible for not producing the Will before the Trial Court despite repeated orders. Learned District Judge has further held that since petitioner had knowledge about the Will and he had filed the original Will in some other case on 14.5.2019, therefore Clause (aa) of Rule 27(1) of Order 41 CPC does not help the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original will was filed in a probate case for which an application was made before the Court concerned on 14.5.2019 and this fact was mentioned in the written argument before the Trial Court. However, this material aspect was overlooked by the learned District Judge. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the suits filed against the petitioner were earlier decreed on 30.3.2016 and after remand by the learned Appellate court, the suits were again decreed on 2.9.2021. However, this material aspect was overlooked by the learned District Judge. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the suits filed against the petitioner were earlier decreed on 30.3.2016 and after remand by the learned Appellate court, the suits were again decreed on 2.9.2021. He further submitted that if petitioner had produced the original Will in a probate case, then he could have moved an application for summoning the Will from the Court concerned before closure of his opportunity to produce the Will by the Trial Court. He further submitted that the fact that the Will has been filed in a probate case was never disclosed before the Trial Court and the statement, if any, made in the written argument will not improve the case of the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner had been playing hide and seek before the Trial Court and despite written undertaking, he has not produced the original Will before the Trial Court. Therefore, his opportunity to produce the Will was rightly closed. 9. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya, 2014 (13) SCC 468 . Relevant extract of said judgment are reproduced below : “4. However, we do not feel impressed with this argument and deem it fit to reject it in view of Order XLI Rule 27(1) (aa) which clearly states as follows: “27. (1)(a) *** (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) *** On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously clear that the party can seek liberty to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, but the same can be permitted only if the evidence sought to be produced could not be produced at the stage of trial in spite of exercise of due diligence and that the evidence could not be produced as it was not within his knowledge and hence was fit to be produced by the appellant before the appellate forum. 5. 5. It is thus clear that there are conditions precedent before allowing a party to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal, which specifically incorporates conditions to the effect that the party in spite of due diligence could not produce the evidence and the same cannot be allowed to be done at his leisure or sweet will. 6. In the instant matter, the appellants are a public authority and have sought to produce a road map which, it is unbelievable, was not within the knowledge of the appellants indicating a road to the disputed land. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the appellants to rely on the said map has rightly not been entertained at the stage of first appeal. The impugned order thus does not suffer from legal infirmity so as to interfere with the same.” 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to the order passed by the Trial Court on 27.11.2019, whereby petitioner’s opportunity to produce the Will was closed. Based on the said order, he contended that since petitioner did not produce the Will on record despite orders passed by the Trial Court and the undertaking given by the petitioner in writing, therefore, he cannot be permitted at the appellate stage to fill the lacuna by producing the original Will. He further contended that although the Will was in possession of the petitioner, but he failed to produce the same before the Trial Court. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence in the matter and his application has rightly been rejected. 11. Law is well settled that Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC cannot be invoked so as to patch up the weak points in the case and to fill up the omission in the Court of Appeal. It does not authorize any lacuna or gap in the appeal to be filled up, as held by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of N. Kamlalam (Dead) & Another v. Ayyasamy & Another, (2001) 7 SCC 503 . In paragraph 19 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “19. It does not authorize any lacuna or gap in the appeal to be filled up, as held by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of N. Kamlalam (Dead) & Another v. Ayyasamy & Another, (2001) 7 SCC 503 . In paragraph 19 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “19. Incidentally, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 have not been engrafted in the Code so as to patch up the weak points in the case and to fill up the omission in the Court of Appeal - It does not authorise any lacunae or gaps in evidence to be filled up. The authority and jurisdiction as conferred on to the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence is restricted to the purpose of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way. This Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham has been candid enough to record that the requirement of the High Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, this Court observed: “This provision does not entitle the High 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. The High Court does not say that there is any such lacuna in this case. On the other hand what it says is that certain documentary evidence on record supports ‘in a large measure’ the plaintiffs’ contention about fraud and mala fides. The High Court does not say that there is any such lacuna in this case. On the other hand what it says is that certain documentary evidence on record supports ‘in a large measure’ the plaintiffs’ contention about fraud and mala fides. We shall deal with these documents presently but before that we must point out that the power under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 cannot be exercised for adding to the evidence already on record except upon one of the grounds specified in the provision.” Further in Pramod Kumari Bhatia v. Om Parkash Bhatia this Court also in more or less an identical situation laid down that since an application to the High Court has been made very many years after the filing of the suit and also quite some years after the appeal had been filed before the High Court, question of interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to receive an additional evidence at that stage would not arise. The time-lag in the matter under consideration is also enormous and the additional evidence sought to be produced was as a matter of fact after a period of 10 years after the filing of the appeal. Presently, the suit was instituted in the year 1981 and the decree therein was passed in 1983. The first appeal was filed before the High Court in April, 1983 but the application for permission to adduce additional evidence came to be made only in August, 1993. Needless to record that the courts shall have to be cautious and must always act with great circumspection in dealing with the claims for letting in additional evidence particularly, in the form of oral evidence at the appellate stage and that too, after a long lapse of time. In our view, a plain reading of Order 41 Rule 27 would depict that the rejection of the claim for production of additional evidence after a period of 10 years from the date of filing of the appeal, as noticed above, cannot be termed to be erroneous or an illegal exercise of discretion. The three limbs of Rule 27 do not stand attracted. The three limbs of Rule 27 do not stand attracted. The learned trial Judge while dealing with the matter has, as a matter of fact, very strongly commented upon the lapse and failure on the part of the plaintiffs even to summon the attestors to the will and in our view contextually, the justice of the situation does not warrant any interference. The attempt, the High Court ascribed it, to be a stage-managed affair in order to somehow defeat the claim of the respondents - and having had the privilege of perusal of record we lend our concurrence thereto and the finding of the High Court cannot be found fault with for rejecting the prayer of the appellants for additional evidence made in the belated application. In that view of the matter, the first issue is answered in the negative and thus against the plaintiffs, being the appellants herein.” 12. From the legal position, it is apparent that Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not confer a right upon a party to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. However, the Appellate Court can permit additional evidence if it is found necessary in order to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause of similar nature. Learned Appellate Court has held that case of the petitioner does not fall under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Rule 27(1) of Order 41 CPC and rightly so in view of the facts and reasons discussed above. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution as it is settled law that power under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised very sparingly when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, as held by Hon’ble Apex court in case of Radhey Shyam & another Vs. Chhabi Nath & others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 616 . 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC ought to have been considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. There is nothing on record to show that the appeals are not at the stage of final hearing. Even otherwise also, valid reasons have been given for rejecting petitioner’s applications, therefore this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. There is nothing on record to show that the appeals are not at the stage of final hearing. Even otherwise also, valid reasons have been given for rejecting petitioner’s applications, therefore this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 14. Consequently, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.