THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2060 of 2010 ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2010 in I.A. No.382 of 2008 in A.S. No.92 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Medchal, Ranga Reddy district, whereunder and whereby the application filed to receive a certified copy of order dated 15.6.1994 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5514 of 1994 as additional evidence, was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of decision in State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani[1], the appellate court ought not to have dismissed the application, but it should have considered the same at the time of pronouncement of its judgment in the appeal, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that when the suit was pending, the petitioner filed an application to receive the self same document and the same was dismissed and that order has become final, and so, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file an application with similar prayer in the appellate court, and hence, the appellate court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. He relied on a decision i n Basayya I.Mathad v. Rudrayya S.Muthad & Ors.[2], wherein it is held thus: “It is clear that parties to the lis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as of course or routine but must satisfy the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a)and (aa ). Admittedly, such recourse has not been resorted to neither by the party concerned nor adhered those principles by the High Court. Paragraph 3 of his order shows that the learned Judge verified the document produced on his direction without complying the mandate as provided under Rule 27 of Order XLI. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the learned judge based on a document produced at the time of argument de hors to Rule 27 referred above cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In fact, sub-clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the reason for its admission. It is needless to mention that the High Court neither followed those conditions for production of additional evidence nor recorded the reason for basing reliance on the same.” 4. Receipt of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not automatic. Unless the case falls under any one of the three clauses under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, it is not a matter of course. However, without even entering into the merits of the case, the application itself is barred by the Doctrine of Issue Estoppel i.e. when an issue of fact has been decided by a competent court and the same has become final, the parties thereto cannot re- agitate on the same aspect of the case. In view of the fact that the trial court has already dismissed the Interlocutory Application No.2944 of 2007 filed to receive the self same document and the said order has become final, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate on the same aspect. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 4.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2060 of 2010 4.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2060 of 2010 4.3.2011 Between: D.Pratap …Petitioner And V.Srisailam …Respondent [1] (2001) 10 SCC 619 [2] AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1108