provisions under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, such power can be exercised only in cases where the appellant has established grounds necessary for such exercise, as contemplated under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code. Therefore, the writ petition should contain the basic pleadings necessary for admission of such additional evidence and the appellant has also to satisfy the Court that, though such an issue was raised in the writ petition, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such documents were not within his knowledge or could not after the exercise of due diligence, be produced before the learned Single Judge at the time when the judgment appealed against was pronounced. This is for the reason that, in an intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to expand the scope of the writ petition by raising grounds which were neither urged nor pressed into service before the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench held that, in the absence of any pleadings in the writ petition as to the technical feasibility or violation of any technical and safety standards, the appellants cannot be permitted to raise such a contention for the first time in the writ appeal, placing reliance on the additional documents produced along with an interlocutory application filed by them.
