THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5778 OF 2009 DATED: 15-02-2011. Between 1.M/s Malik Enterprises, rep. by its Managing Partner and two others … Petitioners-Defendants And M/s Indralok Complex Owners Association, rep. by its President. …Respondent-Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5778 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 22-10-2009, in I.A.No.417 of 2006 in A.S.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 (b) CPC to receive the certified copies of extract of assessment of MCII of plaint schedule mulgies as additional evidence was dismissed. 2. The Managing Partner of the appellant filed an application to the circle No.V of MCH, Khairatabad, West, on 09-08-2006 to get the extracts of the assessment of property tax of the plaint schedule mulgies from the date of assessment of mulgies. Accordingly, the MCH furnished the same on 22-08-2006, which clearly shows that the mulgies were in existence even prior to 1994, but the same were assessed officially on 01-10-1994 and collecting the property tax. The respondents have mis-guided and misrepresented the real facts of the matter to the trial court though they are collecting the maintenance charges of all 5 mulgies from the date of formation of Welfare Society without raising any objection with regard to existence of all 5 mulgies constructed by the builder prior to 1991. As such it is just and necessary to receive the extracts as additional evidence. 3. Receipt of additional evidence in the appellate stage is not a matter of routine or matter of course. When additional evidence is sought to be received in the appellate Court, three requirements are to be fulfilled as per Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Clause (a) has no application because it is not a case where the court below refused to admit the evidence. Similarly, clause (b) has no application because the appellate Court requires the document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment. Clause (b) can be exercised when the appellate Court requires the document to be produced to enable it to pronounce the judgment. With regard to clause (aa) only 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. Therefore, when the evidence to be produced was not within the knowledge of the party, then he can make an application. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he was not having knowledge about the documents now sought to be produced. On the other hand, the affidavit filed in support of the application would go to show that he was having knowledge about the assessment of mulgies by the Municipal Corporation in the year 1994 itself. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the three clauses mentioned in Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and as such, question of admitting evidence does not arise. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 15-02-2011 Hsd