ORDER : [Shree Chandrashekhar, J.] 1. The appellant is in appeal against the judgment dated 12th June 2017 passed in Original Suit (MTS) No. 522 of 2014. 2. By this judgment suit for divorce filed by the appellant under section 13(1)(i) and (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed on contest with award of Rs.10,000/-as litigation cost to the respondent and further cost of Rs.3000/-. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi framed five issues amongst which the issue No.(III) whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and deserted him and issue No. (IV) whether the petitioner is leading an adulterous life and wanted to take advantage of his own wrongs were the main issues. The appellant examined three witnesses and to oppose the relief of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce the respondent also examined three witnesses. 4. The learned Family Court Judge on the basis of the materials laid in the trial of Original Suit (MTS) No. 522 of 2014 returned findings on the aforesaid issue Nos. (III) and (IV) against the appellant and as noticed above dismissed the suit for divorce. 5. By an order dated 2nd August 2018, the parties were directed to appear before the Member-Secretary, JHALSA for mediation exercises. On 29th November 2018, a Division Bench of this Court made a request to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Bijay Singh, a sitting Judge of this Court to mediate between the parties so that they arrive at a settlement. Pursuant thereof, the parties appeared in person before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Bijay Singh, in his Lordship’s chamber on 15th January 2019. The order dated 15th January 2019 passed in the present proceedings would indicate that the learned counsels for the parties perhaps also tendered some alternative suggestions to the parties to think over such proposals and they expressed their desire for some time to think over that. The further proceedings indicate that the mediation exercise continued before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Bijay Singh for some time and the parties also appeared before him but finally they could not arrive at an amicable settlement as regards their disputes. However, in the meantime some settlement was struck at between the parties in the proceedings of maintenance application, a reference of which is recorded in the order dated 29th November 2018. 6. Justice Anant Bijay Singh for some time and the parties also appeared before him but finally they could not arrive at an amicable settlement as regards their disputes. However, in the meantime some settlement was struck at between the parties in the proceedings of maintenance application, a reference of which is recorded in the order dated 29th November 2018. 6. The order dated 29th November 2018 reads as under: “09/ Dated 29.11.2018: (Oral Order) Per D.N.Patel, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides at length, it appears that appellant and respondent both are living separately since, 2012. There is an allegation of cruelty and desertion by this appellant upon the respondent which has not been proved as per the decision rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Original Suit (MTS) No. 522 of 2014, vide judgment and order dated 12.06.2017. 2. During pendency of this proceeding of divorce, maintenance application was preferred by respondent which has been finally disposed of and thereby this appellant has given Rs.86,00,000/-to the respondent plus three flats-residential units, two at Ranchi and one at Kolkata and two cars also. Nothing is required to be paid per month. Everything is in lump sum and there is full and final settlement. 3. There are two children out of the wedlock between appellant and respondent. They are daughters, living with their mother-respondent. 4. Counsels for both the sides submitted that let the clients be called for and let their attempt of settlement be made absolute by this Court. 5. There are all chances of settlement of dispute between the parties and hence, we hereby, request Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Bijay Singh Jee, of this Court to assist the parties in arriving at the settlement alongwith their counsels who shall remain present before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Bijay Singh Jee of this Court on 06.12.2018. 6. The matter is adjourned to be listed on 31.01.2019.” 7. FA No. 207 of 2017 was admitted for hearing on 26th September 2019 and the lower Court records were called for. 8. We have heard Mr. R.S. Mazumder, the learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel who appears for the respondent. They have appraised the Court with brief facts of the case and the issues involved in the present First Appeal. 9. 8. We have heard Mr. R.S. Mazumder, the learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel who appears for the respondent. They have appraised the Court with brief facts of the case and the issues involved in the present First Appeal. 9. After we heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties for about one hour, we are informed that IA No.9370 of 2019 for taking additional evidence on the records of FA No.207 of 2017 has been filed. We are also informed that at one point in time the application for additional evidence was heard by a Division Bench of this Court but no final order was passed in IA No.9370 of 2019. We quite see the reason and that is the law in this regard that any application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) should be decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 10. Therefore, we are now required to take a decision on IA No.9370 of 2019. 11. In this application, the appellant has averred that the production of documents which are produced along with IA No.9370 of 2019 is essential for adjudication of the case. These documents could not have been produced by him because they all relate to subsequent developments after Original Suit (MTS) No.522 of 2014 was dismissed. 12. In paragraph No.10 of this application, the appellant states that he intends to bring on record the mediation report dated 12th June 2019 in connection to anticipatory bail application filed by Nandini Mallick and through paragraph No.14 the mediation report dated 27th March 2018 passed in Maintenance Case No. 150 of 2017. The appellant has made some averments as regards the proceedings before the learned Mediator in connection to ABP No.561 of 2019. He has also made some reference of money paid to the respondent-wife. 13. The appellant has made some averments as regards the proceedings before the learned Mediator in connection to ABP No.561 of 2019. He has also made some reference of money paid to the respondent-wife. 13. In opposition to IA No.9370 of 2019, the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the so-called additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced at this stage for the reason that the conditions for applicability of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are not satisfied and also for the reason that the documents sought to be brought on record as additional evidence are not required for the purpose of enabling the Court to pass a judgment or for any other substantial cause. 14. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that besides the objections taken in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit dated 7th December 2019 the other substantial objections raised by the respondent are recorded in paragraph No.9 of the said affidavit. 15. Paragraph No.9 of the affidavit dated 7th December 2019 sworn by the respondent reads as under: “9. That the statement made in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the interlocutory application under reply are misconceived and misleading. The facts stated are irrelevant for the present appeal. The statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the interlocutory application in particular raise an impermissible issue in as much as what transpired in the mediation cannot be used as evidence, for to do so would destroy the whole institution of mediation where no party would freely deliberate on the disputed issues for the fear of being alleged to have admitted one or other thing. Secondly, the mediation report does not say what is being attributed to it in the paragraphs under reply.” 16. Mr. R.S. Mazumder, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, refers to the judgments in “A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur” (2005) 2 SCC 22 and “Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal” (2012) 7 SCC 288 in which a reference to the decision in “A. Jayachandra” has been made in paragraph No.49 of the reported judgment to submit that subsequent developments can always be taken into consideration if the same has a bearing on the case. 17. Per contra, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent, refers to paragraph Nos. 17. Per contra, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent, refers to paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 of “Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand” 2022 SCC OnLine SC 292 to contend that additional evidence is taken at the appellate stage only in exceptional circumstances and that too for the purposes of coming to a just conclusion in the case or for any other substantial cause. Opposing admissibility of the proceedings before the Mediators, the learned counsel for the respondent would refer to the orders passed in “Moti Ram (Dead) Through Lrs. & another v. Ashok Kumar & another” (2011) 1 SCC 466 ; “Arjab Jena @ Arjab Kumar Jena v. Utsa Jena @ Pattnaik” [Civil Appeal No.151 of 2022] and “Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra” (2019) 20 SCC 753 . 18. Order XLI CPC deals with the procedures in “Appeals from Original Decrees”. Under the heading “Procedure on Hearing”, the Code provides right to begin, dismissal of appeal for appellant’s default, re-admission of appeal dismissed for default, re-hearing on application of respondent against whom ex parte decree was made, remand of case by Appellate Court, and limited remand orders. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC deals with production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. Rule 27 begins with a bar on production of additional evidence providing that the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But in the same breath, sub-rule (1) to Rule 27 carves out three exceptions to the general prohibition on taking additional evidence at the appellate stage. As rightly objected to by the respondent, the conditions under clause (a) and clause (aa) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 are not satisfied in the present case. Clause (b) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 provides that if 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 by recording reasons in this regard. 19. 19. In“A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar” (2015) 17 SCC 713 which is referred to in paragraph No.7 of “Sanjay Kumar Singh” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy of the issue on hand or on the fact. 20. We would further indicate that the important expressions as appearing under clause (b) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 are “to enable the Court to pronounce judgment” and “for any other substantial cause”. The additional evidence sought to be produced by the appellant relates to subsequent developments in the case after Original Suit (MTS) No.522 of 2014 was dismissed vide judgment dated 12th June 2017. No doubt ordinarily the rights of the parties are crystallized on the date of institution of the suit, however, the Appellate Court is not precluded from taking note of the developments subsequent to the decision in the suit. Such powers can be exercised by the Appellate Court in exercise of the powers under section 96 CPC in cases of ordinary civil cases and section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. We may observe that the procedures are handmaid as observed in several decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not the mistress of the judicial process. If the Court is satisfied that the other side has sufficient notice, there is no violation of fair play and it promotes the cause of justice, a prayer for taking additional evidence should not be declined at the threshold. 21. In “Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram” 1992 supp (2) SCC 623 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that wherever subsequent event of facts or law may have some material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on the aspects which may have bearing on molding of the relief, the Courts are not precluded from taking a “cautious cognizance” of the subsequent changes of fact in law. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the subsequent developments which are not denied by the respondent in her affidavit dated 7th December 2019 can be taken cognizance by this Court. However, to what extent cognizance of such facts can be taken by this Court must be guided by the judgments as cited by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent. 23. However, to what extent cognizance of such facts can be taken by this Court must be guided by the judgments as cited by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent. 23. In “Moti Ram” the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “2. In this connection, we would like to state that mediation proceedings are totally confidential proceedings. This is unlike proceedings in court which are conducted openly in the public gaze. If the mediation succeeds, then the mediator should send the agreement signed by both the parties to the court without mentioning what transpired during the mediation proceedings. If the mediation is unsuccessful, then the mediator should only write one sentence in his report and send it to the court stating that the “mediation has been unsuccessful”. Beyond that, the mediator should not write anything which was discussed, proposed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process.” 24. In “Arjab Jena” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “We disapprove the observations made in the impugned order which refer to the comments made during the course of the mediation or settlement proceedings. The High Court should not have taken the aforesaid comments on record, as the same would impede conciliation and is contrary to and impinges on the principle of confidentiality. Accordingly, the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order would be erased from record.” 25. At a glance at the aforesaid observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would indicate that the discussions, proposals and other steps taken during the mediation proceedings should not be recorded by the Mediator when preparing a final report. We would proceed on the premise that the Court also should not take note of any discussion, proposal or other steps which were taken by the parties during the mediation exercise. 26. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent, would refer to the opening paragraph in “Arjab Jena” whereunder the Hon’ble Supreme Court disapproved the Court taking note of the comments made during the course of mediation/ settlement proceedings. 27. 26. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent, would refer to the opening paragraph in “Arjab Jena” whereunder the Hon’ble Supreme Court disapproved the Court taking note of the comments made during the course of mediation/ settlement proceedings. 27. In view of the aforesaid observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are inclined to allow IA No.9370 of 2019 to the extent that: (a) the averments made in the application that in terms of the mediation report dated 12th June 2019 stating Smt. Nandini Mallick and Anushri Jha have settled their dispute; (b) in Maintenance Case No. 150 of 2017, a compromise between Nandini Mallick, Tanvee Mallick, Tamanna Mallick on the one side and Tapas Mallick on the other side was signed on 27th March 2018 during mediation at Civil Court, Ranchi; (c) evidence as regards payment made by the appellant vide Annexure IA-3 and Annexure IA-4, and (d) the contents of compromise dated 27th March 2018 vide Annexure IA-2; shall be made part of the records. 28. IA No.9370 of 2019 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. FA No. 207 of 2017 29. Post this First Appeal on 9th May 2022 under the same heading to be taken up as the first matter.