Additional evidence on appeal requires due diligence; refusal to admit a road map and concurrent findings stood undisturbed.

Additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) is admissible only where the party shows that, despite due diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not be produced at trial. The provision does not permit a party to produce material at leisure or by choice. On the stated facts, the request to produce a road map was found unconvincing, particularly when made by a public authority, and no legal infirmity was shown in refusing it. The concurrent findings of the courts below were also not shown to be perverse, so no interference with the decree was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether additional evidence could be permitted at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa), and whether the concurrent decree and findings of fact called for interference.

Analysis: Permission to adduce additional evidence at the stage of appeal is controlled by the statutory condition that the party seeking to produce such evidence must show that, notwithstanding due diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not be produced at the trial stage. The provision does not allow production of evidence at the party's leisure or sweet will. On the facts, the request to produce a road map was found unconvincing, especially when made by a public authority. The concurrent findings of the courts below were also not shown to be perverse, and no legal infirmity was demonstrated in the refusal to entertain the additional material.

Conclusion: The request to adduce additional evidence was rightly rejected, and no interference with the concurrent decree was warranted.

---