ORDER: RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Heard Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.256 of 2018. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It was decreed. The petitioners filed A.S.No.39 of 2023, which is pending before the learned Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gajuwaka. In the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.290 of 2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘C.P.C’) for additional evidence. The respondents opposed the application. 3. By the order under challenge dated 08.11.2024, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), directed to submit the arguments along with the main appeal simultaneously. The learned Court placed reliance in Uggumudi Chandra Reddy v. Palaganti Krishna Reddy (CR.P.No.5773 of 2016) decided on 11.08.2022, for the proposition that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to receive additional evidence has to be dealt along with the appeal, but not independently, by following the procedure laid down under law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance in Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand , [ (2022) 7 SCC 247 ] , contended that the general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower Court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. But, there is an exception, i.e.Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C, which enables the appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. He submits that in view thereof, the learned court was not right in not deciding the application as it has the power in exceptional circumstances to permit additional evidence. 5. The aforesaid submission, so far as the legal position is concerned that the appellate Court has the power to receive additional evidence is concerned, may be correct but deserves rejection at this stage, because the petitioners’ application for additional evidence has not been rejected but the only order passed is that the application will be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal, simultaneously, for which the petitioners have been asked to advance the arguments at that appropriate stage. 6. In the view of this Court, at the stage of consideration of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. the learned court shall consider if the additional evidence deserves to be received or not in appeal. 6. In the view of this Court, at the stage of consideration of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. the learned court shall consider if the additional evidence deserves to be received or not in appeal. So far as the stage to consider application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is concerned, the law is well settled that an application for additional evidence is to be considered at the time of consideration of the appeal. 7. In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin , [ (2012) 8 SCC 148 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the stage of consideration of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and as per this judgment an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. 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 issue involved. It has been clearly held that an application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of the final hearing of the appeal, at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence is required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. If the 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 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 allowed to be ignored. It is relevant to reproduce paragraph no. 49 of the judgment in the case of Ibrahim Uddin (supra) as under: “49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. 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. 49 of the judgment in the case of Ibrahim Uddin (supra) as under: “49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. 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. 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 and Natha Singh v. Financial Commr. Taxation.)” 8. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani , [ (2001) 10 SCC 619 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with appeal. If the court finds the document necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in 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 would be inappropriate and for the said reason the dismissal of the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. at the stage prior to the stage of deciding the appeal was held untenable. Paragraph no. 4 of the T.N. Sahani Case (supra) is being reproduced as under: - “4. Paragraph no. 4 of the T.N. Sahani Case (supra) is being reproduced as under: - “4. It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K. 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 as 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.” 9. The Allahabad High Court in Dr.Chandra Deo Tyagi v. Additional District Judge Court No.1, Meerut and others , [2020 SCC OnLine All 849] upon referring to judgments, laid down the following propositions of law: “58. The following propositions of law as laid down in the aforesaid Judgments on the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 may be summarised:- 1. The Allahabad High Court in Dr.Chandra Deo Tyagi v. Additional District Judge Court No.1, Meerut and others , [2020 SCC OnLine All 849] upon referring to judgments, laid down the following propositions of law: “58. The following propositions of law as laid down in the aforesaid Judgments on the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 may be summarised:- 1. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. 2. The appellate court, as an exception to the above general principle may permit additional evidence only if the conditions laid down in Rule 27 are found to exist. 3. If the appellate court requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce a satisfactory judgment, it can permit additional evidence. 4. If the appellate court, on the basis of evidence already on record can pronounce a satisfactory judgment this provision does not entitle it to let in fresh evidence only for filing lacuna in the evidence and to pronounce judgment in a particular way. 5. The matter is entirely in the direction of the appellate court and is to be used sparingly and judiciously, circumscribed by the limitations in the rule itself. 6. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 should be heard and decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal and if it is decided before hearing of appeal, the order would be a product of total non application of mind, as to whether such evidence was required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not and would remain inconsequential, inexecutable and liable to be ignored. 7. The parties are not entitled as of right to the admission of the additional evidence. 8. Where the additional evidence is admitted the appellate court shall record reasons for such admission. 9. If the application for additional evidence is allowed, the additional evidence/documents will have to be proved regarding their existence, authencity, genuineness and also their contents. Mere admission of the documents in additional evidence does not amount to those documents being straightway exhibited. 10. On admission of additional evidence, the other side is to be given opportunity to file evidence in rebuttal.” 10. There is no illegality in the order under challenge. 11. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. On admission of additional evidence, the other side is to be given opportunity to file evidence in rebuttal.” 10. There is no illegality in the order under challenge. 11. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.