IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2270 of 2008(T) ------------------------- AS.60/2000 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- ANTONY FRANCIS, S/O.FRANCIS, KIZHAVANA HOUSE, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CAPTAIN V.S.GEORGE, S/O.LATE SHOWRY, VETTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 2. CINDRELLA GEORGE, D/O.V.S.GEORGE, VETTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 3. XAVIER, S/O.V.S.GEORGE, VETTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 4. AMBROSE, S/O.V.S.GEORGE, VETTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 2270 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in I.A.4777/00 in A.S.60/00. It was an application filed by the appellants for reception of documents and the Court had dismissed the same. It is against that decision the present writ petition is filed. On a previous round of litigation that is when a CMA was preferred against the order of remand passed by the trial Court, the matter came up before this Court and this Court allowed the CMA and ordered as follows. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in A.S.60/00 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below to consider and dispose of I.A.4777/00 filed by the respondents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in accordance with law and dispose of the appeal also afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Most probably it is in compliance W.P.C 2270 OF 2008 -:2:- with this direction the appellate court has disposed of I.A.4777/00. I may like to state this Court has not ordered disposal of I.A.4777/00 before considering the appeal. The Apex Court in the decision reported in State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani (2001 (10) SCC 619) held that; “When an application is filed for receiving additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 it should be decided along with the appeal considering the necessity of the documents, sought to be adduced as additional evidence, for pronouncing the judgment more satisfactorily. The Supreme Court held that it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provisions of Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC can be moved. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along the appeal. Had the Court found that necessity to pronounce judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same, if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing an appeal would be improper.” W.P.C 2270 OF 2008 -:3:- So applying this dictum it is always desirable to consider the application for reception of documents along with the appeal for the reason that the Court will be in an appropriate position to understand the impact of those documents so far as it relates to that case. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and restore I.A.4777/00 back to file and direct the appellate court to consider the petition for reception of documents along with the appeal and dispose of the case in accordance law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-