IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :4375 of 2009 Between: S. Balamani ..... PETITIONER AND P. Ravi .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4375 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed aggrieved by order, dated 24th July, 2009 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.1675 of 2009 in A.S.No.144 of 2005. The petitioner is the appellant in the above appeal. Originally, the respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.542 of 2002 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.1.1995 alleged to have been executed by the husband of the petitioner herein and the said suit was decreed on 25.7.2005 and hence, the petitioner- appellant carried the matter in appeal. At this stage, the petitioner- appellant filed the above application under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC for receiving the documents viz., agreement of sale dated 27.6.2000 and a copy of sale deed dated 5.8.2000, as additional evidence in the appeal on the ground that the agreement of sale dated 16.1.1995 was superseded by another agreement dated 27.6.2000 wherein it was agreed by her husband to give 530 sq. yards only instead of 900 sq. yards as mentioned in the agreement dated 16.1.1995 executed in favour of the respondent, who is a benami of one L. Shiva Charan, and that in pursuance of the agreement dated 27.6.2000, her husband had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the said Shiva Charan and the original agreement dated 27.6.2000 was given to her counsel and the same was filed in the lower Court but the same was not marked and the certified copy of the sale deed dated 5.8.2000 was obtained on 11.6.2009. The Court below having observed that as the agreement dated 27.6.2000 is in between the husband of the petitioner-appellant and one L. Shiva Charan and the respondent is not a party to the said agreement, the same was not marked before the Court below, and in these circumstances, the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner-appellant are not relevant for deciding the appeal, dismissed the petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is relevant to note that Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC does not confer a right on the party to produce additional evidence at the appeal stage. While dealing with the applications of this nature, it is to be examined as to any of the contingencies mentioned under Order 41 Rule 27 is applicable to the present case. The first contingency is that the evidence sought to be produced in the appeal is that which the trial Court has refused to admit though it ought to have been admitted. In the instant case, the agreement dated 27.6.2000, which is sought to be received as additional evidence, was filed in the lower Court, but the same was not marked and another document viz., sale deed dated 5.8.2000 was filed along with the petition. The order under revision clearly goes to show that a plea was taken in the written statement as to the alleged agreement of sale dated 27.6.2000 and the said document was filed, but the same was not marked. In this regard, the Court below gave a clear finding considering the evidence as well as the written statement of the petitioner-appellant. Apart from that, the material on record clearly goes to show that the respondent is not a party to the documents in question. Next contingency that is required to be considered is that the evidence sought to be produced was not available to the party seeking to produce it notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence by him. It is not a case where the evidence was not available to the party. Therefore, this contingency is not applicable to the present case. The third contingency is the requirement of the Court of appeal for additional evidence, so as to enable it to pronounce the judgment. It is observed by the lower appellate Court that the documents in question are not relevant for adjudication of the appeal. Therefore, it can be said that the appellate Court does not require any document to be adduced so as to enable it to pronounce judgment. In view of the foregoing discussion, it can be said that neither of the contingencies is applicable to the present case and the petitioner- appellant has not made out any prima case for receiving the documents as additional evidence in the appeal. Under the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 9th October, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4375 OF 2009 09.10.2009