THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2633 of 2009 and 3732 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since both the revisions are filed by common petitioner and almost common facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. These two revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 08.04.2009 in I.A.No.713 of 2008 and I.A.No.103 of 2009 in R.A.No.25 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad allowed the applications filed by the respondents herein permitting them to produce additional evidence. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, who is the landlord that the appellate Court ought to have heard the appeal and the application to receive additional evidence and after hearing the appeal on merits if the Court felt that additional evidence is necessary, then only the Court should have allowed the applications and the practice of hearing the applications separately and allowing the same has been consistently rejected by the Courts. It is also his contention that the conditions enumerated in Order 41 R.27 have to be complied with before permitting the party in the appeal to adduce the evidence. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable. Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is as follows: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court: The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the Appellate Court. But if--- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or] (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. Reliance is placed on judgment reported in EASTERN EQUIPMENT & SALES LIMITED v. ING.YASH KUMAR KHANNA[1], wherein the apex Court held that Appellate Court ought to have taken up the appeal along with the application for additional evidence. I n STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER v. MAHENDRAKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI DESAI[2], which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court observed as follows: “If the Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Court may allow the party to adduce additional evidence, but such power cannot be invoked to fill up the lacunae.” Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment in K.R.MOHAN REDDY v. NETWORK INC., REPRESENTED THROUGH MD[3], wherein the circumstances under which additional evidence could be received have been discussed. However, it was further held that if clause ‘b’ to Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC is to be taken recourse to, the appellate Court is bound to consider the entire evidence on record and come to an independent finding for arriving at a just decision permitting a party to adduce the additional evidence and consider whether additional evidence was necessary or not. In EASTERN EQUIPMENT & SALES LIMITED v. ING.YASH KUMAR KHANNA (stated 1 supra) the Apex Court taken a view that the appellate Court ought to have taken up the appeal along with the application for additional evidence. In the circumstances, the consistent view of the Apex Court appears to be that the appellate Court should hear the appeal and the application seeking to produce additional evidence together and then consider whether the application to receive additional evidence should be allowed or not. We are not inclined to consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the conditions enumerated under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC have been complied with or not since that job has to be done by the appellate Court. Since it appears that the application to receive additional evidence and the appeal were not heard together, the impugned orders set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate Court with a specific direction to hear the appeal and also the application to receive additional evidence and to recall P.W.1 and to consider the same on merits. Civil Revision Petitions are allowed accordingly. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. In view of the above order, the orders in I.A.No.713 of 2008 and I.A.No.103 of 2009 in R.A.No.25 of 2007 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, stands set aside. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:20.07.2010. Rns [1] (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 739 [2] (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 772 [3] (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 257