IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4218 of 2010 BETWEEN Katragadda Sambasiva Rao. ... PETITIONER AND Katragadda Sivaji Rao. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the lower appellate Court dated 28.06.2010 rejecting petitioner’s application being I.A.No.749 of 2010 in A.S.No.8 of 2009 for reception of additional evidence at the appellate sage. 2. Petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the trial Court, succeeded in a suit for perpetual injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent herein filed the above appeal pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. While the said appeal was coming up for disposal, the petitioner herein filed the aforesaid application and sought to produce certain house tax receipts, water tap deposit receipt and electricity receipts etc. as additional evidence and wanted to establish with the help of these documents that he has constructed a house on the suit schedule property. The said application was rejected by the lower appellate Court by noticing that all the said documents now sought to be produced have come into existence on account of the impugned judgment, which is subject matter of the appeal. The lower appellate Court, therefore, felt that the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not made out and consequently rejected the application. 3. Heard both the learned counsel. 4. The question, at the threshold, which needs to be addressed, is whether the lower appellate Court was justified in disposing of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC ahead of the appeal, without taking up the appeal itself. This Court has taken a view in CRP.No.5297 of 2010 dated 25.02.2011, based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. T.N. SAHANI[1], that application for additional evidence should be decided along with the appeal itself, which is a more satisfactory way to pronounce all such applications and disposal of such applications ahead of the appeal was held inappropriate. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the said view would be attracted only where application for additional evidence is founded on the ground that additional evidence is required by the Court for enabling it to pronounce judgment and not to other cases. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be made now, I am not inclined to deal with the said submissions as it would further delay the hearing and disposal of the appeal and the application for additional evidence. In the circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to oppose the said application for additional evidence on all available grounds, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order on the principle as followed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.N. SAHANI’s case (1 supra) and direct the lower appellate Court to consider I.A.No.749 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein along with the appeal itself on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order. The lower appellate Court shall hear and determine A.S.No.8 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 11, 2011 DSK [1] (2001) 10 SCC 619