HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2250 of 2008 Dated : 17.06.2010 Between : Gadepaka Rajamani ….. Petitioner a n d Gadepaka Krishna ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2250 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri T.Santhosh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri N.Raghavan, learned counsel for the respondent. The revision is directed against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, in I.A.No.105 of 2008 in A.S.No.2 of 2007 on 25.03.2008. The learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent herein to receive his salary/income certificate as additional evidence in the appeal notwithstanding the opposition by the revision petitioner, which objection was found to be of some material relevance by the Appellate Court itself. The Appellate Court felt that in the interest of justice, the petition has to be allowed without any prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner objects to receive the additional evidence as the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not in any manner satisfied by the respondent and no reasons were recorded by the Appellate Court for allowing admission of the additional evidence. The revision petitioner relied on K.Ahmed Ali Sab and others v. Desai Abdul Gani Desai[1] to contend that the Appellate Court went against the accepted principles in this regard. In the said decision, the learned Judge referred to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed that in the absence of any pleading about the inability to produce additional evidence in spite of due diligence or any pleading about documents not being within the knowledge of the party, the additional evidence could not have been received under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits receipt of such additional evidence not only when the party who seeks to produce such additional evidence establishes either of such contingencies but also where the Appellate Court itself 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 shall record the reasons for admitting such additional evidence in any event. The impugned order shows that the Appellate Court herein considered that the salary/income certificate has to be admitted in the interests of justice without reference to either the knowledge of the respondent about the document or about any due diligence being present or absent in not filing it till now. Hence, it is clear that the Appellate Court itself thought that in the dispute involving a claim for maintenance, such additional evidence sought to be produced will enable it to pronounce a judgment on merits on the questions of controversy between the parties, which itself can be considered as substantial cause for allowing the admission of such evidence. In any view when there is judicial discretion conferred on the Court to receive such additional evidence and under the circumstances stated in the affidavit and for the reasons recorded, the exercise of such judicial discretion cannot be interfered with. It should also be remembered that rules of procedure are not intended to punish the parties for any technical lapses or delays but are intended to be handmaids of justice. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by the Appellate Court in permitting to receive the document as additional evidence. However, as there is absolutely no reason assigned by the respondent for non-production of the salary/income certificate earlier, it would have been appropriate to impose suitable costs before permitting the document to be received as additional evidence. It should also be made clear that mere permission to receive the document as additional evidence cannot be equated to proof of it and any such permission to produce additional evidence is subject to relevancy and proof. This clarification is required in view of the specific plea taken in the counter that the revision petitioner is denying the genuineness of the certificate now produced. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is modified directing receipt of the document as additional evidence subject to payment of Rs.500/- by the respondent herein as costs to the credit of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Jangaon, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order by the Appellate Court and in default the petition in I.A.No.105 of 2008 in A.S.No.2 of 2007 shall stand dismissed and the document sought to be received as additional evidence shall be subject to relevancy and proof. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th June, 2010 SUR [1] 2005 (3) ALD 31