JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment/ decree dated 13.04.2006 passed by District Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 4- B/2002, wherein the said court decreed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,08,000/- with interest against the appellant and in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. Heard on application dated 01.04.2019 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 12 Rule 8 of C.P.C. seeking that respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to produce the original X-ray report dated 14.08.2001 and opinion vide M.L.C. plate No. 192 (E).

3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 opposes the application.

4. It is pleaded that the documents are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal and the appellant was unable to produce these documents before the trial court even after exercise of due diligence. It is also pleaded that the documents are required bonafidely and the same is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the appeal.

5. To decide the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be read as under:

"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 produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within the knowledge of 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.

6. It is not the business of the appellate court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this Rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal.

7. The two tests for admissibility of additional evidence, is whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the material before it, without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examine the evidence, as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defects becomes apparent to the court. It is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence, that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. When a party failed to discharge its onus before the trial court, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence.

8. The trial court has provided full opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence. The doctor who seen the X-ray report namely R.K. Gupta has been examined before the trial court, therefore, it is not a case where lacuna in the evidence should be removed by the court.

9. In view of the above, the application is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

10. As per version of respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs, Prem Dayal Gulhare was husband of respondent- Smt. Sadhna Gulhare, son of respondent- Smt. Jamuna Devi Gulhare and father of Ms. Payal and Ms. Kajal. He was working as Meter Reader in Municipal Corporation, Raipur. He was admitted on 14.08.2001 in Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Bilaspur after he got injured in an accident, which he met while he