Additional evidence in appeal requires due diligence and relevance; a belated, unpleaded document will not justify admission.

Additional evidence in appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is not a matter of right and must satisfy the statutory conditions, including due diligence and demonstrated necessity. The appellants relied on a belatedly discovered document, but they had not pleaded its existence earlier, did not show why it could not have been produced before the trial court despite due diligence, and failed to establish any direct relevance to the issues of ownership or possession. The long delay and lack of connection to the suit property meant the request did not meet the threshold for admission, so the application for additional evidence was rejected and the evidentiary record was not enlarged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to be permitted to produce additional evidence in appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Leave to adduce additional evidence in appeal is not a matter of right and can be granted only where the statutory conditions are satisfied. The application was founded on a document allegedly discovered much later, but the appellants had neither pleaded the existence of any such proceeding in the written statement nor shown that the document could not have been produced before the trial court despite due diligence. The document also had no direct connection with the suit property and did not bear on the ownership or possession issues in controversy. In view of the long lapse of time, the absence of earlier disclosure, and the lack of relevance, the request did not satisfy the requirements for admission of additional evidence.

Conclusion: The application for production of additional evidence was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court refused to enlarge the evidentiary record and the application stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal can be admitted only on a showing of due diligence or other statutorily recognised necessity, and a belated, irrelevant document not pleaded earlier will not justify invocation of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

---