' This is an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Alleging that Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and mutations Nos.1048, 1299, 1280, 1203 and 1247 could not come on record of the lower Court and those are necessary documents to dispose of this revision petition.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the suit was filed on 27-4-1976 i.e. 24 years before, and the case was twice remanded and at none of the stage, these documents were brought on record and even when review petition was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, they did not avail the opportunity and when this revision has been partly heard, they are now requesting for appending these documents. He has relied upon 1999 SCM R 951, 1999 M LD 3018, 1999 YLR 930 and 1997 SCM R 1849 to contend that at this belated stage, an application for additional evidence could not be allowed.
3. As a rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all these documents are public documents and they prove fully nexus of the petitioner with the suit land and that he should not be technically knocked out at this stage and that the law demands that the decision should be on merits.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this was never the case of the petitioner that these documents were not in his knowledge and that in case the submission of ,the learned counsel for the petitioner is admitted then there will be no end to allow the admission of documents even at any stage.
5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides. The relevant provisions on the subject are contained in Order XLI, Rule 27 of C. P C . Which reads 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
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, 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) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."
6. In the case of Parsotim Thakur and others v. Lal Mohar Thakur and others AIR 1931 Privy Council 143, while discussing the legitimate occasion for the exercise of discretion unnder Order XLI, Rule 27, observed as under:-- "In their Lordships' opinion this additional evidence ought not to have been admitted. If the respondents desired to give evidence as to the thumb-impression they had ample opportunity to do so in the trial Court. The provisions of section 107, Civil P.C., as elucidated by Order 41, Rule 27, are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower Court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omission in the Court of Appeal.
' Turning to the provisions of Rule 27, clause (1)(a) has no application in the present case. Under clause (1) (b) it is only where the appellate Court 'requires' it, (i.e., finds it needful) that additional evidence can be admitted. It may be required to enable the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, but in either case it must be the Court that requires it. This is the plain grammatical reading of the sub-clause. The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent".
' This is laid down in the most positive terms by Lord Robertson in Kessowji Issue v. G.I.P. Ry. (1907) 31 Bom. 381-34 I.A. 115-9 Bom. L.R 671 (P.C.) (at P.122 of 34 I.A.) He was dealing with the words of section 568 of the Code of 1882, but they are substantially the same as those of Order 41, Rule 27, of the present Code. It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party or that a party may move the Court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the Court upon its appreciation of the evidence as it stands.
' Wherever the Court adopts this procedure it is bound by Rule 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing and under Rule 29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. Their Lordships regret to find that so far as the record discloses, none of these conditions was complied with in the present case.
' Reference has been made in this connection to certain observations contained in the judgment delivered by Mr. Ameer Ali in Indrajit Pratab Sahi v. Amar Singh (AIR 1923 P.C. 128). The question in that case was as to the power of the Board to admit additional documents which the High Court had rejected, and this power is not in any way restrict ted or governed by the provisions of the Code. If any incidental remarks appearing in this judgment have occasioned any doubt as to the meaning of the rules above referred to, or the conditions under which the discretion of the appellate Court is to be exercised, their Lordships desire to emphasize their view that the correct practice in the matter is as they have now defined it in accordance with the plain words of the Code.
' They will only add that the power so conferred upon the Court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised, and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case."
7. In the case of Hadayatullah v. Habibullah (1982 SCM R 256), where the production of additional evidence was disallowed by appellate Court on the ground that the evidence sought to be led was of such a nature which with due diligence could have been produced before the trial Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that no illegality had been pointed out In the order and declined to interfere.
8. In the light of the above provision of law and the judicial precedents, I am not convinced that there is any need of the documents sought to be brought on record as additional evidence for decision of the present revision petition for the reason that the documents were public documents, certified copies of which could be easily obtained by the applicant and that it may not be said that it were not in the knowledge of the applicant as the whole file of mutation No,1048 was on the record as Exh.P-8. This application is, therefore, an attempt to fill in the lacuna in the evidence of the petitioner which is not justified. The same is, therefore, dismissed.