The main legal point established is the limited scope of Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, and the discretionary nature of allowing additional evidence in appellate courts.

Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Oral) - Challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby the application under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed.

2. A decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and against the petitioners on May 13, 1997. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the petitioners preferred an appeal which is still pending before the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC was filed with a prayer that the petitioners may be permitted to place on record certified copies of the plaint, written statement, order civil in suit No. 143 of 14.5.1993 re. "Nachattar Singh etc. v. Baldev Singh etc." decided on 21.8.1993.

3. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order has come to the conclusion that all the aforesaid documents were in the knowledge of the petitioners. The said suit was decided on 21st August, 1993 whereas the present suit filed on 14.12.1993 was decided on 13.5.1997. The application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC has been moved on 3.10.1999 with a view to prolong the proceedings.

4. For the proper appraisal of the matter, the scope of Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, is to be kept in view which is as under :-

"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 be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."

5. Admittedly, the documents sought to be produced were in the knowledge of the petitioners and it cannot be said that despite exercise of the due diligence, the same could not be produced. In fact these were filed in the previous suit No. 143 of 1993, referred to above. The appellate court has rightly declined the prayer to lead additional evidence as the same was not considered essential to enable him to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Even otherwise also, in the exercise of the revision powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere in the impugned order in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh and others v. Naresh Chandra and another, AIR 2001 SC 134 : Vol. CXXVII - (2000-1) PLR 496 wherein it has been observed as under :

"Before we proceed further we would like to refer to the scope of an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. Section 107, CPC enables an appellate Court to take additional evidence or to require such other evidence to be taken subject to such conditions and limitations as are prescribed under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC. Principle to be observed ordinarily is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower Court and cannot take evidence on appeal. However, Section 107(d), CPC, is an exception to the general rule, and additional evidence can be taken only when the conditions and limitations laid down in the said rule are bound to exist. The Court is not bound under the circumstances mentioned under the rule to permit additional evidence and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admis