JUDGMENT : By way of instant appeal, appellants have assailed judgment and decree dated 23.9.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala, in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1999, whereby the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1999, passed by Sub Judge, Kangra in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1992, was affirmed. 2. Parties hereafter shall be referred to by their names, as find mention in the memorandum of parties in the civil suit filed before learned trial Court. 3. Brief facts for adjudication of the appeal are that Tulsi Ram filed a suit for decree of possession in respect of suit land, which was described as land comprised in khata No. 124 min, khatauni No. 233, khasra No. 1385, measuring 7 square meters, situated at Mohal Tehsil Chowk, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. (hereafter referred to as the suit land). The facts averred in the plaint were that the plaintiff was a perpetual tenant over the suit land on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The tenancy was claimed by plaintiff under Fateh Singh by virtue of agreement dated 21.12.1981. The plaintiff claimed himself to have remained in possession of suit land till December, 1991, whereafter, he alleged his illegal and forcible dispossession at the hands of defendants. It was submitted that the plaintiff had a structure standing over the suit land, having value of more than Rs. 20,000/-, which was also demolished by defendants by exercising force. As per plaintiff, defendant Bangali Ram had also instituted a suit for possession by demolition of structure against the plaintiff in respect of the suit land, but during the pendency of the said suit, Tulsi Ram was forcibly dispossessed and thereafter his suit was withdrawn by Bangali Ram on 5.12.1991. 4. The suit was contested by Bangali Ram. Objections as to maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, valuation, estoppels etc. were raised. The suit was also stated to be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On merits, Bangali Ram claimed himself to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of its purchase from previous owner in the year 1960. It was alleged that Tulsi Ram had occupied the suit land by deceitful means. He had given an undertaking to vacate the suit land but had failed. On merits, Bangali Ram claimed himself to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of its purchase from previous owner in the year 1960. It was alleged that Tulsi Ram had occupied the suit land by deceitful means. He had given an undertaking to vacate the suit land but had failed. As per Bangali Ram, he had filed suit for possession but during its pendency on 17.8.1991, the “Khokha” (kiosk) raised by Tulsi Ram on suit land got demolished. Tulsi Ram had removed his belongings and vacated the land. The plea of tenancy raised by Tulsi Ram was also denied. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land/property as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damage if so, to what extent? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred U.O. 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD. 7. Whether the act and conduct of the plaintiff is bar to the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the defendant is owner in possession of the suit property as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff has removed his structure voluntarily and vacated the land as alleged? OPD. 9A. Whether the plaintiff fabricated any document as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD. The learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in affirmative, whereas issues No. 3 to 9A were decided in negative. Accordingly, the suit of Tulsi Ram was decreed in following terms: - “in view of the aforesaid discussions and decision on issues No. 1 to 9-A, the suit of plaintiff deserves to be decreed which is accordingly decreed for possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No.124 Min, Khatauni No.233, Khasra No.1385 area measuring 7-00 C.M. (7 meters) situated at Mohal Tehsil Chowk, Kangra, Teh. & Distt. Kangra by demolition of the structure if found already raised thereon. The suit of the plaintiff is also decreed for recovery of Rs. 5000/- as damages on account of damages caused to Khokha. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. & Distt. Kangra by demolition of the structure if found already raised thereon. The suit of the plaintiff is also decreed for recovery of Rs. 5000/- as damages on account of damages caused to Khokha. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly and file after due completion be consigned to the records.” 6. Bangali Ram assailed the judgment and decree, passed by learned trial Court in First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. During pendency of appeal, Bangali Ram died and was substituted through his Legal Representatives as appellants. Learned lower appellate Court affirmed the findings returned by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal of Bangali Ram vide impugned judgment and decree, hence the instant second appeal on behalf of Legal Representatives of Bangali Ram. 7. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 18.7.2008 on following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge below stand vitiated on account of the fact application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC stand decided separately in view of the judgment of Hon’ble apex Court, as such, are liable to be quashed and set aside? 2. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is beyond the period of limitation and this aspect having been over looked by the courts below thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees?” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 9. To support first substantial question of law, as noticed above, Sh. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. T.N. Sahani & others, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 619 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 9. To support first substantial question of law, as noticed above, Sh. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. T.N. Sahani & others, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 619 . The relevant extract of above judgment is noticed as under: - “It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K. for pronouncing the Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed in additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC can be invoked. So, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law”. 10. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law”. 10. On the strength of aforesaid observations, rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the learned lower appellate Court had erred in deciding the application of Bangali Ram under Order 41Rule 27 separately and before decision on the main appeal. He submitted that by way of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, Bangali Ram intended to prove on record copy of sale deed by virtue of which he had purchased the suit land, statement of Tulsi Ram recorded in case Bangali Ram vs. Kuldeep and copy of affidavit of Tulsi Ram in case Mata Brijeshwari Mandir vs. Bangali Ram. He further submits that proof of sale deed by virtue of which Bangali Ram had purchased the suit land in 1960, would definitely have helped the learned lower appellate Court to pronounce judgment. The decision on the application of Bangali Ram prior to the decision of main appeal had caused serious prejudice to the rights of Bangali Ram, as the learned lower appellate Court did not have opportunity to assess the necessity and requirement of said sale deed at the time of passing of impugned judgment. 11. Per contra, Sh. Janesh Gupta learned counsel representing Tulsi Ram has contested the assertion made on behalf of Bangali Ram. He submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants were not available to them in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that Bangali Ram had filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, seeking to produce additional evidence on record that he could not produce the documents mentioned in the application before learned trial Court despite due diligence and it was in the light of the submissions made in the application that the same was decided by learned lower appellate Court on its merits. 12. Record reveals that the learned lower appellate Court decide the application of Bangali Ram under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC vide order dated 17.7.2006. 12. Record reveals that the learned lower appellate Court decide the application of Bangali Ram under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC vide order dated 17.7.2006. Learned lower appellate Court had taken note of the fact that the documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence had been tendered by learned counsel for Bangali Ram during the proceedings before learned trial Court on 9.7.1998 and the evidence was closed as per statement made by learned counsel for Bangali Ram in that behalf. Learned lower appellate Court further observed that the learned trial Court had not refused to admit such documents in evidence. It was the defendant Bangali Ram, who had failed to take any steps to prove such documents and as such, no due diligence can be found on his part. The Court thus held that there was sufficient material on record to enable it to pronounce judgment. The application was accordingly dismissed. 13. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: - 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) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission”. 14. It is more than settled that the parties cannot lead evidence at appellate stage as a matter of right. Any party seeking to lead additional evidence has to make out a case under any of the clauses of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, as noticed above. 14. It is more than settled that the parties cannot lead evidence at appellate stage as a matter of right. Any party seeking to lead additional evidence has to make out a case under any of the clauses of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, as noticed above. Bangali Ram had sought to lead additional evidence only on the ground that despite due diligence, he could not lead the required evidence before learned trial Court. Such contention has been found to be incorrect. In this regard, no fault can be found in the order rejecting the plea of Bangali Ram to lead additional evidence. Evidently, copies of documents were produced before learned trial Court and thereafter, the evidence was closed. No effort was made to prove the documents in accordance with law. 15. Noticeably, learned lower appellate court, while deciding the application under order 41 rule 27 CPC, had observed as under : “…..parties have already lead sufficient evidence on record and the documents which are sought to be brought and proved on record including the documents sought to be proved on record being part of the record and the relevancy of those documents are to be decoded on the merits of the appeal and thereby the evidence already on record is sufficient to enable this court to pronounce judgment.” 16. Thus, the question to be adjudicated herein is as to whether the adjudication of application under Order 41 Rule 27 before decision of main appeal will vitiate the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court? 17. In T.N. Sahani’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made the observations keeping in view the provisions of clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41CPC. Said rule applies when the Court feels that the production of any document or examination of any witness is necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment. It was in such context that Hon’ble Supreme Court made observations to the effect that the Court had missed an opportunity of assessing the necessity of documents for adjudication of the main matter. 18. In Himanshu vs. Bishan Dutt & others, reported in 2006 (1) SLC 25, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:- “8. Undoubtedly, in Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court were seized of a situation where the appeal Court was exercising jurisdiction under clause (b). 18. In Himanshu vs. Bishan Dutt & others, reported in 2006 (1) SLC 25, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:- “8. Undoubtedly, in Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court were seized of a situation where the appeal Court was exercising jurisdiction under clause (b). The fact that the appeal Court in that case was exercising jurisdiction under clause (b) is clearly borne out from the following observations in the judgment with respect to the order passed by the appeal Court. We quote: “These two entries taken together if found genuine, would enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice that the additional evidence should be let in. I have taken action under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b), Civil Procedure Code. This additional evidence would supply material to remove the defect pointed out in the judgment of the Court below, why two of the sons of Sehja Singh came to own equal shares of land of Pattar Kalan in the presence of their 3rd brother." 9. The judgments in cases of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani, Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and others and Parsotim Thakur and others v. Lal Mohar Thakur and others, make it abundantly clear that all these cases related the exercise of jurisdiction by the appeal Court under clause (b) and none of these cases related to the exercise of jurisdiction by the appeal out under clause (a) or under clause (aa). Undoubtedly, a bare reading the three clauses in Rule 27 of Order 41 clearly suggests to us that so far as clause (a) and clause (aa) are concerned, the initiative has come from the party seeking to lead additional evidence either because the party feels that despite efforts by it the trial Court had refused to nit the evidence which ought to have been admitted (refer to clause (a)) or despite exercise of due diligence, the evidence not being in the knowledge of the party in the trial Court, it could not produce the same during the trial. In so far as the situations relatable to clauses (a) and (aa) and are concerned, in our considered opinion, application for production additional evidence can be filed by the party at any stage of the appeal, even before the stage of final hearing of the appeal. In so far as the situations relatable to clauses (a) and (aa) and are concerned, in our considered opinion, application for production additional evidence can be filed by the party at any stage of the appeal, even before the stage of final hearing of the appeal. In coming to this, we have in our minds cogent reasons. The main reason is that the party knows that either with respect to the situation under clause (a) or with respect to a situation under clause (aa), the trial Court erred in not allowing the additional evidence and unless the additional evidence is produced the party's case cannot be properly put across. There is no reason for such a party to wait for the final hearing of the appeal because that would be a sheer wastage of time and the party would be well advised in such a situation to file an application for leading the additional evidence at the initial, rather earliest stage of the appeal itself. There can also be situations where the party understands its case very well and finds that unless the additional evidence is brought on the record the appeal cannot be effectively adjudicated upon. There can be numerous other reasons why a party would genuinely feel convinced about the imperative need of leading additional evidence at the very initial stage of the appeal because the party would be genuinely convinced that unless additional evidence was produced, the appeal by itself, based on the record of the trial Court would be imperfect or incomplete causing prejudice to the interests of the party. 10. In contradistinction to clauses (a) and (aa), as far as clause (b) is concerned, its ambit and scope is quite distinct because the expression "to enable it to pronounce the judgment" occurring in clause (b) clearly suggests that only when the appellate Court has started hearing of the appeal and in the course of the hearing of the appeal feels that it requires any additional document to be produced or any additional witness to be examined, it may call for additional evidence. There might be actually situations and cases where even though the appeal Court finds that it would be able to pronounce the judgment on the basis of the record of the trial Court as it was, it might still consider that in the interests of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce the judgment in a more satisfactory manner. The requirement has to be of the Court and the requirement is always to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment for any substantial cause. In either case the requirement has to be of the Court. This is the plain meaning and clear interpretation of clause (b) and based on such interpretation, in our considered view, the legitimate occasion for the exercise of this jurisdiction is not any stage prior to the hearing of the appeal but the stage of the final hearing of the appeal when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect became apparent to the Appeal Court. There might be situations where the Appeal Court in the process of examining the evidence while hearing the appeal finds that some omission needs to be supplied and in such a situation it can ask for additional evidence to supply such an omission with a view to enabling it to pronounce the judgment.” 19. As noticed above, Bangali Ram had made prayer for additional evidence by seeking aid of clauses (a) and (aa) of order 41 rule 27 CPC and the learned appellate court in addition to consideration of parameters for consideration of prayer under aforesaid clauses had also ventured to consider the prayer of applicant in context of clause (b) also. Once such exercise was made by learned lower appellate court, it should have restrained itself from deciding the application for additional evidence separately and before consideration of the merits of the appeal for its final adjudication. 20. Viewed from another angle, the appellants have been able to show prejudice to them by earlier disposal of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Issue No. 8 was framed by learned trial court is being reproduced once again as under : 8. Whether the defendant is owner in possession of the suit property as alleged? 20. Viewed from another angle, the appellants have been able to show prejudice to them by earlier disposal of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Issue No. 8 was framed by learned trial court is being reproduced once again as under : 8. Whether the defendant is owner in possession of the suit property as alleged? OPD Had the learned lower appellate court considered application for additional evidence at the time of final adjudication of the appeal, it would not have missed an opportunity of assessing the necessity of documents for adjudication of the main matter. The first substantial question of law is thus decided in affirmative. 21. As regards the other substantial question of law framed by this Court on 18.7.2008, the same is answered in negative. There was no issue framed on limitation. In fact, there was no objection to that effect in the written statement. Limitation was not an issue before learned lower appellate Court. Even otherwise, from the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue of limitation cannot be made out. 22. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 23.9.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala, in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1999 is set aside so also the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by said court on application under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter is remanded back to the court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala to decide the application of appellants filed under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and appeal of the appellant afresh by hearing both together. Parties to appear before learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 21.10.2022. The appeal is accordingly disposed of so also pending application(s), if any. Records be sent back forthwith.