Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 04.12.2017, passed, in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2016/03 of 2017, by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. II, Jehanabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned Lower Appellate Court), by which the learned Lower Appellate Court has accepted the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the appellants-respondent nos. 1 and 2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one Bishwanath Mishra was the owner of a piece of land, situated in Khata No. 78, Plot Nos. 18, 22, 23 and 24, having an area of 01 acre 06 decimals By virtue of unregistered sale deed, dated 19.06.1970, the land in question was sold in favour of the petitioner, showing the value of the land less than Rs. 100/-, i.e. Rs. 99/-. A chak khatiyan was prepared through consolidation proceeding and a new chak khata no. 66, chak plot no. 22, having an area of one acre has been allotted to the plaintiff-petitioner.

4. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein are the son of the original owner, Bishwanath Mishra, and respondent no. 1 and 2 are the purchasers from respondent nos. 3 and 4, by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 16.03.2015.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 05 of 2015 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree, dated 24.10.2016 and the respondents, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, preferred Title Appeal No. 58 of 2016 on 02.11.2016. Two petitions, dated 10.07.2017 and 22.07.2017, were filed by the appellants, under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. to adduce additional evidence in the appeal and altogether 15 documents were sought to be adduced by the appellants. Out of 15 documents, the learned Lower Appellate Court has taken only 07 documents on record by way of additional evidence. He, referring to the impugned order, submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court, while allowing the petitions for adducing additional evidence, has committed grave error of law and has only recorded in the impugned order that the documents adduced by way of additional evidence are necessary to decide the title of the land in question. He further submits that Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. is in three parts, which are quoted herein below and the petitions filed by the appellants for adducing additional evidence have been allowed on the basis of Order XLI Rule 27 (b) of the C.P.C., but without arriving at the finding that how the documents are necessary for pronouncing the judgment effectively in the appeal. –

“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.”

6. Accordingly, the submission is that the learned Lower Appellate Court has not applied its mind in the correct factual and legal perspective while allowing the petitions for adducing additional evidence by the impugned order.

7. In support of his argument, learned Counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Union o