( 1 ) THE respondents filed a suit being O. S. No. 31 /91 on the file of District munsif, Medchal, Rangareddy district against the lather of the present petitioner namely late J. Pentaiah. The suit was decreed on 2nd March, 1995. When the suit was decreed the defendant i. e. , late J. Pentaiah was alive and he filed an appeal being A. S. No. 28 of 1995 before II Additional District Judge, rangareddy district at Saroornagar. The appellant Sri Pentaiah died on 1st march, 1997. The present petitioner became party to the appeal as legal heir of late Sri J. Pentaiah. He moved an application before the appellate Court in October, 1997 praying that an agreement executed between the parties to the suit dated 28th January, 1990 be received as additional evidence. The application has been rejected by the appellate Court. Hence this revision.

( 2 ) THE suit had been filed in the year 1991, it was decreed on 2nd March,1995 and an application for receiving the additional evidence was made only in October, 1997. In para-4 of the application moved before the appellate Court the petitioner stated that, it was because of oversight that the agreement of january, 1990 was not produced before the Trial Court. He submitted that in between the parties there were two agreements one dated 26-10-1975 and another dated 28-1-1990, both had been produced before the Revenue authorities and while taking the evidence of the Revenue authorities it transpired that agreement dated 28-1-1990 was not reflected in the revenue records for reasons not known to the petitioner. Subsequently, in the application it has been stated by the petitioner that the original of the said agreement dated 28-1-1990 had been misplaced and could not be filed earlier.

( 3 ) AN application for receiving additional evidence at the appellate stagecould only be allowed if conditions laid down in Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C. are satisfied. Rule 27 lays down:"production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. 27. (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 add i tional 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. "in the present case we are concerned with Rule 27 (1) (aa ). Before a party is allowed to produce additional evidence he has to establish that the 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. This provision makes it clear that, it is not as a matter of right that any party can walk into the appellate Court and seek grant of permission to produce the additional evidence. In the present case nothing has been shown by the petitioner that the evidence which is sought to be produced was not within his knowledge or, if it was within his knowledge it could not have been produced even after exercise of due diligence. The agreement sought to be produced is allegedly executed in the year 1990. The suit was filed in 1991 which was decreed in 1995. Till October, 1997 no steps were taken to produce this evidence. The Supreme Court in Roop Chand vs. Gopi Chand while refusing production of secondary evidence at the appellate stage held:"11. On a consideration of the matter we think the objections raised by the appellant s Counsel for the filing of additi