JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.58 of 2018 whereby the petition under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed by the learned appellate court. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that at the appellate stage, the said documents have been allowed and that is against the principle of Order 41 Rule 27. He submits that the due diligence is not there in spite of that the learned Court has passed the said order which is not in accordance with law and in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside. He submits that the documents were in the knowledge of the sole opposite party in spite of that it has not been brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party submits that only the certified copy of the khatiyan and the certified copy of order of the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur relating to the property has been brought on record and the learned Court has taken it on record for pronouncing the judgment and on materials there is no illegality. 5. From the impugned order dated 12.01.2023, it transpires that the documents are the certified copy of khatiyan and the certified copy of order of learned Court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and the certified copy of order of the High Court and in the light of that the learned Court has further considered Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which provides restriction on transfer of the right by raiyat and the learned Court further found that if those documents are brought on record that will enable the Court to pronounce the judgment and do full, complete and effectual justice to the parties and in view of that the said documents have been taken by the learned Court. 6. It has been held in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2022) 7 SCC 247 , wherein at paragraph No.8, it has been held as under :- 8. 6. It has been held in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2022) 7 SCC 247 , wherein at paragraph No.8, it has been held as under :- 8. As observed and held by this Court in A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, 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. It is further observed that the trust 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. 7. In the said judgment, it has been held that 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 or not. The learned Court has found that those documents are necessary for pronouncing the judgment and in view of that the said order has been passed. There is no illegality in the order, as such this petition is dismissed. 8. However, the petitioners will be allowed to lead additional evidence on the documents which has been taken on record by the learned Court.