ISHAN CHANDRA DAS,J. - (1.) Heard learned Advocate for the parties.
(2.) In the instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the propriety of the Order No.18 dated 13th July, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly, in Title Appeal No.166 of 2010 arose out of judgment and decree dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the learned civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly in Title Suit No.62 of 2004 has been called in question.
(3.) In the order impugned, learned court below while disposing of the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner herein was trying to fill the lacuna to patch up the weak points in the case which cannot be entertained by him while dealing with the Title Appeal No.166 of 2010. The provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code permitted the parties to an appeal to produce additional evidence, oral or documentary, in the appellate court on the following grounds: (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, 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, subject to satisfaction of the court, recording the reasons for its admission.;