ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or orders for quashing the order dated 02-11-2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in Regular Appeal No. 78 of 2015 by allowing the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in I.A. No. II filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for production of additional documents. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed I.A. No. II in Regular Appeal No. 78 of 2015 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for production of additional documents before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (for short ‘the Appellate Court’). Said application came to be allowed vide order dated 02-11-2017. Plaintiffs-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the Original Suit No. 373 of 2006 against the defendant No. 2-petitioner for relief of partition and separate possession came to be dismissed with costs vide order dated 24-10-2011 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara (for short ‘the trial Court’). 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in Original Suit No. 373 of 2016, the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed Regular Appeal No. 78 of 2015 before the Appellate Court, wherein I.A. No. II filed for production of additional documents. The First Appellate Court after hearing both the parties, allowed the said appeal and the appellants were permitted to produce the documents, mentioned in the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 2 has contended that respondent Nos. 1 to 3-plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. II for production of additional documents before the Appellate Court after lapse of two and half years from the date of filing of the regular appeal. They have not assigned any valid or tenable reasons for such inordinate delay in filing the application for producing the documents. He has further contended that, time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have held: “It is not open for the parties at the stage of appeal to make fresh allegations or to produce the documents. They have not assigned any valid or tenable reasons for such inordinate delay in filing the application for producing the documents. He has further contended that, time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have held: “It is not open for the parties at the stage of appeal to make fresh allegations or to produce the documents. Additional evidence could not be permitted at appellate stage in order to enable one of the parties to remove certain lacunae in presenting their case.” Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition and to set aside the order passed on I.A. No. II. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-plaintiffs has contended that the respondents have filed an appeal before the Appellate Court challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed their suit for partition and separate possession. As such, the respondents intend to produce the certified copy of the registered sale deed executed by plaintiff No. 1-respondent No. 1 (Smt. Girijamma) in favour of C.S. Ramakrishna and also the order of the Deputy Tahasildar, Nada Kacheri, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, sanctioning old pension in favour of plaintiff No. 1-respondent No. 1 (Smt. Girijamma). He further contended that the aforesaid documents were handed over to their learned counsel, who was representing them before the trial Court in Original Suit, but their learned counsel did not produce those documents in the trial Court for the reasons best known to him and as such, they produced the same before the Appellate Court for consideration. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 8. On careful consideration of the arguments by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is relevant to go through Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which 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. 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. (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. (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.” 9. A plain reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 clearly depicts that the parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the Appellate Court, but for the three situations mentioned above. It is also well settled law that the parties are not allowed to fill the lacunae at the appellate stage. 10. In the case on hand, no application was moved before the trial Court seeking permission to produce the additional evidence, i.e. the documents which the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 3 intend to rely upon and moreover in the affidavit filed by one of the plaintiffs in Regular Appeal No. 78 of 2015 reads that they handed over those documents to their counsel before the trial Court in Original Suit, but their counsel could not produce the same before the trial Court for the reasons best known to him. 11. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , in respect of production of additional evidence, has held as under: “41. 11. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 , in respect of production of additional evidence, has held as under: “41. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.” 12. Further, in the case of Andisamy Chettiar vs. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the position of law, which reads as under: “13. Though the general rule is that ordinarily the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and additional evidence, whether oral or documentary is not admitted but Section 107 CPC, which carves out an exception to the general rule, enables an appellate court to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed. These conditions are prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Nevertheless, the additional evidence can be admitted only when the circumstances as stipulated in the said Rule are found to exist.....” In N. Kamalam (Dead) and Another vs. Ayyasamy and Another, this Court, interpreting Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code, has observed in Para 19 as under: “.......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 authorize any lacunae or gaps in the 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.” In Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, this Court has held as under: “49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved.” 13. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Appellate Court while hearing the matter finally could exercise jurisdiction one way or the other under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specially clause (b). If the order was wrong on merits, it would always be open for the respondents to challenge the same in accordance with law, if an occasion arises to carry the matter in second appeal after an appellate decree is passed. Hence, perusal of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the order passed by the Appellate Court on I.A. No. II in R.A. No. 78 of 2015 is premature and liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 02-11-2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, on I.A. No. II in Regular Appeal No. 78 of 2015 is hereby set aside. (iii) The Appellate Court is directed to decide the application I.A. No. II filed under Order LXI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC for production of documents afresh in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra. 15. Ordered accordingly.