Roop Chand vs Gopi Chand Thalia on 29 March, 1989
(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,
the appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.''
In the present case we are concerned with Rule 27(l)(aa). Before a party is allowed to produce additional evidence he has to establish that the evidence was not 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. This provision makes it clear that, it is not as a matter of right that any party can walk into the appellate Court and seek grant of permission to produce the additional evidence. In the present case nothing lias been shown by the petitioner that the evidence which is sought to be produced was not within his knowledge or, if it was within his knowledge it could not have been produced even after exercise of due diligence. The agreement sought to be produced is allegedly executed in the year 1990. The suit was filed in 1991 which was decreed in 1995. Till October, 1997 no steps were taken to produce this evidence. The Supreme Court in Roop Chand v. Gopi Chand, , while refusing production of secondary evidence at the appellate stage held: