THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5331 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.318 of 1999 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed A.S.No.14 of 2007 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel. In that appeal, he filed I.A.No.115 of 2007 under Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. with a prayer to summon the Tahsildar of B.Mattam for production of records mentioned therein. It was pleaded that though the certified copies of the said records were filed before the trial Court, they were not believed by expressing a doubt about the authenticity and as such, it became necessary for the petitioner to file the application. The respondents opposed the I.A. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order, dated 29.10.2007. Hence, this revision. Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessity for the petitioner to file the I.A. arose in the context of the doubt expressed by the trial Court about the documents, which were filed as Exs.A1 to A6. He contends that the application is within the purview of Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. is clear in its purport and hardly there exists any doubt as to the scope thereof. Normally, an appeal is just continuation of the suit and it has to be decided on the basis of the evidence, which is already part of the record. The facility to adduce additional evidence is created under Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. The circumstances under which the additional evidence can be adduced are provided therein. The first is where the party concerned was not aware of the existence of such evidence when the proceedings were pending before the trial Court or an effort made by it to place that evidence before the trial Court did not fructify. The second is where the lower appellate Court itself feels the necessity of taking the additional evidence into account. In the instant case, none of the circumstances referred to above exist. It is not in dispute that the documents, which are sought to be summoned are already part of record in the form of certified copies. Additional oral evidence cannot be adduced, just to support the evidence, which is already on record. In case, even if the trial Court has expressed any doubt as to the authenticity or acceptability of Exs.A1 to A6, the petitioner has to canvass his remedies before the lower appellate Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2010 kdl