IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9507 of 2011 ROHANI DEVI Versus SMT.MEERA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2. 21.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 6th Arariya in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2005 arising out of Title Suit No. 374 of 1991 where by the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing the additional evidence before the appellate court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the compromise petition was prepared which was filed in the earlier Title Suit No. 17 of 1990. A copy of the said compromise application was with the Panch. The respondent manipulated the said compromise application and filed before the court below and on the basis of the said manipulated compromise petition a compromise decree was passed. When the petitioner came to know about the said manipulation filed the present suit challenging the compromise decree on the ground of manipulation and fraud. The suit was dismissed. Then the petitioner filed the appeal. 2 During the pendency of the appeal petitioner came to know that a copy of the compromise application was with the Panch, therefore, the petitioner filed the application before the appellate court for being permitted to adduce additional evidence. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below after considering the various decisions and also facts of the case has rejected the application. It is well settled principles of law that adducing additional evidence at appellate stage is not permissible except the three conditions provided under Order 41 Rule 27 i.e. Order 41 Rule 27 – A, AA and B. Therefore, adducing of additional evidence is not general rule. It is only permissible in exceptional cases for just decision of the case. Here the learned court below has given good reasons for rejection of the application. Therefore, the learned court below acted within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)