2. In so far as the additional evidence is concerned, the same can be allowed to be led if the pre-requisites mentioned in the said provision are satisfied. In the instant case, having regard to the application filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner's case would fall within Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of the said provision which postulates that unless the Appellant satisfies the due diligent test, the additional evidence cannot be permitted to be led. In the instant case, the reasons mentioned by the Petitioner for non-production of the document at the trial stage did not commend acceptance to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court was therefore of the view that since the pre-requisite for leading secondary evidence as postulated by Order 41 Rule 27 has not been complied with by the Petitioner, the application was required to be rejected. It is required to be noted that the Petitioner has been cross-examined in the trial on behalf of the Defendant on the point of his title to the premises in question. Notwithstanding the same, the Petitioner did not choose to produce the document i.e. the Will at the trial stage. The fact that the document was
