JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the Appellate Court), whereby their application for production of additional evidence in the shape of certified true copy of the statement of Mst. Ishro Devi recorded on 23.12.2014 has been dismissed. 2. It appears that one Ishro Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had filed a suit before the Court of Munsiff (Additional Special Mobile Magistrate) Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred to as the trial Court) against the petitioners herein, seeking their eviction from a shop situated at Gole Market, Udhampur. The said suit came to be decreed by the learned trial court in terms of its judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018. The aforesaid judgment and decree came to be assailed by the petitioners herein by way an appeal before the Appellate Court. 3. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioners/appellants filed an application for producing the certified true copy of the statement made by Ishro Devi on 23.12.2014 in another suit, titled, Ishro Devi vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. by way of additional evidence. It is contended that in the said statement Smt. Ishro Devi had admitted that if rent in respect of the suit shop is enhanced then she does not intend to get the said shop vacated. On this ground, it was contended that the said statement of Mst. Ishro Devi is necessary and important for decision of the appeal as the same has important bearing on the main issue. 4. Learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 11.12.2020 dismissed the application of the petitioners on the ground that the statement proposed to be tendered by the appellants by way of additional evidence would not help the Court in pronouncing the effective judgment. 5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on many grounds but the only ground, which has been urged by the learned counsel during the course of hearing, is that the learned Appellate Court could not have decided the application of the petitioners before final hearing of the appeal. 5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on many grounds but the only ground, which has been urged by the learned counsel during the course of hearing, is that the learned Appellate Court could not have decided the application of the petitioners before final hearing of the appeal. It has been contended that it is only at the stage of hearing the final arguments in the appeal upon appreciating the evidence led before the trial court that the Appellate Court would be in a position to determine as to whether the additional evidence sought to be produced, is of any help to the said Court in pronouncing the judgment but in the instant case, the Appellate Court has, prior to reaching the said stage, dismissed the application of the petitioners. 6. Heard and considered. 7. In order to determine the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners, it would apt to refer to the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, which lays down the procedure for producing the additional evidence at the appellate stage: “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 the produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.” 8. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in the normal course, the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce the additional evidence. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.” 8. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in the normal course, the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce the additional evidence. However, in the following three circumstances, the parties can be allowed to produce additional evidence before the Appellate Court: 1) When the Court below has refused to admit the evidence, which ought to have been admitted. 2) When despite exercise of due diligence, evidence sought to be produced are not within the knowledge of the party concerned or the said party could not produce the same even after exercise of due diligence. 3) If the additional evidence sought to be produced enables the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or the Appellate Court for any substantial cause is of the opinion that such evidence should be allowed to be produced. 9. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners/appellants are not seeking to produce additional evidence either on first or on second ground enumerated herein above. According to the petitioners/appellants, the statement of Ishro Devi sought to be produced would enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment. The question that arises for determination is, as to at what stage the Court can form an opinion as to whether a particular evidence sought to be produced would be helpful for the Court in pronouncing the effective judgment. 10. A plain reading of Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41of the CPC reveals that Appellate Court has power to permit the additional evidence to be produced, if it enables it to pronounce the judgment. The stage of pronouncement of the judgment would come only after the final arguments are heard by the Court and not prior to that. In this regard, it would be apt to placed reliance upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim ud Din and Anr, 2012 (8) SCC 148 . The Supreme Court has, in the said case, while discussing the issue relating to the stage of consideration of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in a situation where ground for letting in additional evidence is to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce a judgment, observed as under: “38. The Supreme Court has, in the said case, while discussing the issue relating to the stage of consideration of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in a situation where ground for letting in additional evidence is to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce a judgment, observed as under: “38. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Vide: Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 193 ; and Natha Singh & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1053 ). 39. In Parsotim Thakur & Ors. v. Lal Mohar Thakur & Ors., AIR 1931 PC 143 , it was held: “The provisions of S.107 as elucidated by O.41, R.27 are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the Court of appeal. Under R.27, Cl.(1) (b) it is only where the appellate Court “requires” it (i.e. finds it needful). Under R.27, Cl.(1) (b) it is only where the appellate Court “requires” it (i.e. finds it needful). …… The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but “when on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent”, it may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party may move the Court to apply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands. Wherever the Court adopts this procedure it is bound by R. 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing, and under R.29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. The power so conferred upon the Court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case…” (Emphasis added) (See also: Indirajit Pratab Sahi v. Amar Singh, AIR 1928 P.C. 128 ) 40. In Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors. (supra), this Court held: “………If the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it was non-existent……. The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17.8.1942. The appeal was heard on 24.4.1942. There was thus no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court required to be filled up for pronouncing the judgment” (Emphasis added) 41. The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17.8.1942. The appeal was heard on 24.4.1942. There was thus no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court required to be filled up for pronouncing the judgment” (Emphasis added) 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/in executable and is liable to be ignored. In the instant case, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed on 6.4.1998 and it was allowed on 28.4.1999 though the first appeal was heard and disposed of on 15.10.1999. In view of law referred to hereinabove, the order dated 28.4.1999 is just to be ignored.” 11. From the above analysis of law on the subject discussed by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, particularly on the ground that such evidence would enable the Court to pronounce the judgment has to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal because it is only at that stage that the Appellate Court would be in a position to appreciate the evidence on record and reach the conclusion whether or not additional evidence is required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. 12. In the instant case, the learned Appellate Court has decided the application of the petitioners for producing additional evidence before the final hearing of the appeal without undertaking appreciation of the evidence led by the parties before the trial court. 12. In the instant case, the learned Appellate Court has decided the application of the petitioners for producing additional evidence before the final hearing of the appeal without undertaking appreciation of the evidence led by the parties before the trial court. The learned Appellate Court has therefore, landed itself into a grave error while rejecting the application of the petitioners at a premature stage. The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the impugned order, the same is set aside. The case is remanded to Additional District Judge. Udhampur with a direction to decide the application of the petitioners for production of additional evidence afresh at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 14. The petition stands disposed of. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional District Judge, Udhampur.