Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.1.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015 by which application 13-Ga filed by the petitioners to adduce additional evidence in appeal, has been rejected.

3. The petitioners’ predecessor in interest instituted Original Suit No. 1158 of 2002 which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 1.12.2014 against which Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2015 was filed. In the pending civil appeal, an application 13-Ga was filed for bringing on record Khewat extract of 1333 F by way of additional evidence.

4. In the application it was stated that the suit was dismissed because the plaintiff had failed to file document disclosing that the name of Guljari Lal was entered in revenue record in respect of the plot concerned; that despite hectic search the record of the Tehsil was not made available and the S.D.M. had not supplied copy of the relevant revenue record because the records were under compilation therefore, as soon as it was made available, the same was being filed now; and that the document being a certified copy of public record, ought to be received in evidence.

5. An objection was filed to the aforesaid application claiming that no material particular was given to show that any effort was made to obtain copy of the aforesaid documentary evidence during the pendency of the matter before the trial Court and further no material had been brought on record to show as to when application was moved to obtain the document and whether any such application was made during the trial Court proceeding. It was thus claimed that the document could not be accepted as additional evidence on any of the grounds contemplated by Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

6. The Court below rejected the application upon finding that no material was brought on record by the appellant to show whether an application to obtain copy of the Khewat extract was made during the trial Court proceeding. The Court below disbelieved the appellant’s claim that despite effort the document could not be produced before the trial Court because, had it been so, application could have been filed before the trial Court to adjourn the proceeding for enabling production of the document. It was held by the Court below that as no material was placed before the Court to demonstrate as to when an application to obtain copy of the document was moved and, further, no concrete material was produced to explain the delay of over 12 years in bringing the document on record, the explanation offered was not acceptable and, therefore, the application was liable to rejected.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the document was part of a public record it ought to have been accepted and the application should not have been rejected.

8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Lakshman and others, 2016 (13) SCC 124, in which the Apex Court had observed that when an application to bring additional evidence, relating to public documents, is filed and there is no objection to the said application, then averments made in the application should be accepted as unrebutted and to secure the ends of justice, additional evidence should be admitted. Reliance has also been placed on decision of this Court in Chaudhari Haider Hussain and others v. Apar Ayukt (Prashasan), Lucknow Division and others, 2016(6) ADJ 143 (LB), to contend that where existence of a document is already admitted then the document should be taken on record by way of additional evidence, which is not the case here. Another decision of the Apex Court in Shalimar Chemicals Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and others, 2010 (8) SCC 423, has been relied wherein a photocopy of the document was a