THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1537 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.33 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Manthani against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that he purchased the suit property through a sale deed, dated 14.02.2008, for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- from his vendor. It is stated that the respondents are interfering with his possession over the said property. He has also filed I.A.No.120 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit opposing the I.A. It was pleaded that one of their co-owners claimed this very item of property by filing O.S.No.36 of 2007 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani and after the suit was dismissed, that very individual is said to have sold the property and thereafter, the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner has come into existence. Through its order, dated 16.10.1998, the trial Court allowed the I.A. and granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. The respondents filed C.M.A.No.4 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani against the order in I.A. The appeal was allowed, through order, dated 02.03.2009. Hence this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court allowed the I.A. by taking into account the documentary evidence placed before it by the petitioner, which is marked as Exs.A1 to A5. A specific observation was made by the trial Court to the effect that no documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. In the appeal filed by them, the respondents took a specific plea before the lower appellate Court that though certain documents were relied upon by them, the trial Court did not take the same into account. The lower appellate Court has extensively discussed the case of the respondents with reference to those documents and has allowed the appeal. A clear observation was made to the effect that it can receive the documents as additional evidence and remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh appreciation. However, it was observed that such a course would result in waste of time of the Court and money of the parties. An appeal, be it regular or miscellaneous, has to be decided only on the basis of the material that was available before the trial Court. If an appreciation of that very material warrants a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court, the appellate Court can certainly interfere. It is almost impermissible for any party to place reliance upon the additional material over and above what was available before the trial Court; at the stage of appeal. That is the reason why Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. places restriction upon the filing of additional evidence at the stage of appeal. It is only when the factors mentioned in Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. are proved that the appellate Court can receive additional evidence. Even where the additional evidence is received, the matter must naturally go to the trial Court, unless the parties agree for the matter to be decided by the appellate Court itself. The reason underlying this course is that the trial Court must be given an opportunity to deal with the matter on the basis of the evidence which is brought on record subsequently. An appellate Court cannot find fault with the trial Court by taking into account certain material, which was not at all available before the trial Court. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal, duly taking into account the documents, which the respondents may place before it. Till the disposal of I.A.No.120 of 2008, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.07.2010 kdl