THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2673 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against order, dated 16.06.2010, in I.A.No.23 of 2010 in A.S.No.12 of 2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur. The first respondent herein is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has filed O.S.No.443 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, for grant of permanent injunction over the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein contested the suit. Altogether, six issues were framed on the pleadings in the aforesaid suit. With regard to five issues, findings were recorded in favour of the petitioner/first defendant. But, however, the trial Court on issue No.6, by recording a finding that the first respondent company is not carrying on business, for which it was formed, has ordered to continue the Advocate-Receiver, who was appointed in I.A.No.1053 of 2000. Finally, the aforesaid suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the finding recorded on issue No.6, in which, the trial Court passed orders to continue the Advocate-Receiver, the petitioner herein carried the matter by way of first appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur. In A.S.No.12 of 2009 filed by the petitioner herein, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.23 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to receive following documents as additional evidence. 1. Default notice under Section 162/18/210(5) and 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 dated 30.06.2009 from ROC, A.P., at Hyderabad. 2. Summons to accused person Section 61 issued by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, to Ch.Ajay Ghosh, Managing Director of the Company, dated 15.12.2009. 3. Served copy of the CC.No.401 to 406 on the petitioner (1st respondent in A.S.No.12/2009) 4. CC of Deposition of P.W.1 (Sri I.A.Ansari, U.D.C. (R.O.C), Hyderabad, in C.C.No.405/2009. 5. Annual Return of the Company for the year 2008. 6. CC of Deposition of P.W.1 (Sri I.A.Ansari, UDC, ROC, Hyderabad) in CC No.404/2009. 7. Balance Sheet of the Company for the year 2007-2008 8. Form DIN-3 (Board of Directors of the Petitioner/1st Respondent in A.S.No.12/2009). 9. Order dated 20.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.250/2008 in O.S.No.13/2008 by the 1st Additional District Judge Court, Nellore. The said I.A. was allowed by the lower appellate Court through the impugned order, in which, the lower appellate Court clearly recorded a finding that the said documents were not existing at the time of conducting trial, as such, it was not possible for the first respondent to file those documents at the stage of trial and the first respondent has established the requirements under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no appeal at all by the first respondent/plaintiff. It is submitted that the appeal was filed by the petitioner, who was the first defendant in the suit, aggrieved by the finding recorded on issue No.6 only, as such, if such evidence is allowed to be produced at this stage, it will enlarge the scope of the appeal itself. Such argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The effect of such documents in question on finding No.6 is a matter, which is required to be considered at the time of disposal of A.S.No12 of 2009. As much as the first respondent in I.A.No.23 of 2010 has established that the additional evidence, which was sought to be filed at the appellate stage, is not existing in the stage of trial, the lower appellate Court rightly recorded a finding that there were reasons to allow the evidence at the stage of first appeal. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the party seeking to produce additional evidence has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time of trial. Relevancy of the documents in question to the finding recorded by trial Court on issue No.6 cannot be gone into at this stage. In view of valid reasons recorded by the lower appellate Court in the impugned order for allowing I.A.No.23 of 2010, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th APRIL, 2011. kvni