HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 5523 of 2008 Date: 09-09-2010 Between: Jawid …… Petitioner and Mohammed Tanveer Iqbal and another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 5523 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the appellant before the lower appellate authority, filed this Revision Petition, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 05- 11-2008 in I.A.No.519 of 2008 in R.A.No.80 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed the said Application under Section 25 of the Act read with Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to summon the stamp vendor. The Court below, after considering the material on record, dismissed the Application by observing that to prove the denial of title, the petitioner has to prove the contents of the document as well as the execution of the documents, but it is not relevant who purchased the stamp paper and therefore, summoning of the stamp vendor is not necessary. Hence, the present Revision Petition. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and considered the material on record, it is seen that admittedly a regular appeal is pending on the file of the lower appellate authority wherein the present Interim Application is filed, which virtually amounts to, no doubt, trying to adduce additional evidence. Normally all such Applications for introducing additional evidence should be taken up along with the main appeal and then only they can be properly appreciated. Unless and until the main appeal is brought up for arguments, on merits, from both sides, it cannot be said that whether such exercise of adducing additional evidence is necessary or not. The Appeal is nothing but continuation of similar proceedings before the original Court. Hence, it cannot be said that no such procedure can be taken course even in the Appeal. The Application has to be considered on merits and disposed of along with the main appeal when the main appeal is brought up for arguments on merits. Therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain and the same is liable to be aside. In view of the above circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order, dated 05-11-2008 in I.A.No.519 of 2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the lower appellate authority to consider I.A.No.519 of 2008 afresh along with the main Appeal at the time of final disposal of the main Appeal and pass orders, on merits, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _______________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 09-09-2010 YCR