IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20959 of 2011 Md.Yunus Ansari @ Md.Yanus Versus Md.Haroon & Anr ---------------------------------- 02. 30.11.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant- petitioner against the order dated 21.09.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, F.T.C. IV, Supaul in Title Appeal No.36 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed for specific performance of contract. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff could not examine the scribe of the agreement. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present appeal and filed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by examining the scribe of the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that because of ill advice, the scribe could not be examined at the time of examination of witnesses in the suit. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and found that the same Advocate was appearing in the suit as well as in the appeal 2 also and further found that on the ground of ill advice of the Advocate, a party cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence and, therefore, rejected the application. A constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of five Judges in the case of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1008 has held that under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., the appellate court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined but the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. The power under Order 41 Rule 27 cannot be exercised for adding to the evidence already on record except upon one of the grounds specified in the provision. Admittedly, in the present case at our hand, the ground raised by the petitioner for non-examination of the scribe is not covered under the provision as contained under Order 41 Rule 27 (i) (a) (aa) (b) of the C.P.C. The learned court below considering all these aspect of the matter has rejected the prayer. 3 I, therefore, find no jurisdictional error in the impugned error. Therefore, it cannot be interfered with in the supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)