IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19694 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Prasad @ Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Kumar Bharti Versus Shiv Pyari Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 23.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are plaintiffs respondents but by mistake the defendants respondents has been typed. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant appellant petitioner against the order dated 26.7.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Khagariya in S.T.A. No. 15 of 1987 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only one rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the petitioner’s father was required to be produced by the petitioner but the learned court below has wrongly rejected the said prayer. According to the learned counsel the said rent receipt is necessary for just decision in the case. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham reported in AIR 2 1965 SC 1008 the Constitution Bench (Five Judges Bench) of the Apex Court has held that no doubt 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 it 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 purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing the lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. The power cannot be exercised for adding to the evidence already on record except upon one of the grounds specified in the provision. If the documents on record are relevant on the issues the court could well proceed to consider them and decide the issues. In the present case, as has been admitted by the appellant documentary evidences have been adduced by the appellant in the court below. It is not the case that in absence of this document which is sought to be adduced as additional evidence the court will not be able to pronounce judgment. 3 In such view of the matter the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the court below cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)