Additional evidence on appeal may be allowed when documents arose later and could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

Additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is permissible where, despite due diligence, the evidence was not within a party's knowledge or could not be produced when the decree was passed. The documents in question had come into existence after the appeal was filed before the State Commission, so they could not have been produced earlier before the District Forum. The material was said to be relevant to the appellants' inability to obtain an occupancy certificate until unauthorized structures were removed, and rejection solely on the ground of late production was treated as legally unsustainable on that reasoning.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The documents sought to be produced had admittedly come into existence after the appeal was filed before the State Commission, and therefore could not have been produced earlier before the District Forum. Additional evidence at the appellate stage is permissible where, notwithstanding due diligence, the evidence was not within the party's knowledge or could not be produced when the decree appealed against was passed. The proposed documents were relevant to the appellants' inability to obtain the occupancy certificate until the unauthorized structures were removed, and the rejection of the application merely on the ground that the documents were

---