THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.231 OF 2011 DATED:11.08.2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07.12.2010, in I.A.No.530 of 2010 in A.S.No.114 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for receiving certain documents by way of additional evidence, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property of 423 sq.yards. The said suit was dismissed and the petitioners preferred appeal in A.S.No.114 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioners filed I.A.No.530 of 2010 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to file certain documents by way of additional evidence. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, it is averred that the said documents are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute, but they were not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, during the trial of the suit and they came to know of the said documents subsequently and all the documents are public documents and hence, certified copies thereof are now sought to be filed. Respondents-defendants filed a counter opposing the said application. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dismissed the application holding that the petitioners have no explanation how they came to know about the existence of the documents now at the appeal stage and they failed to convince the Court that in spite of due diligence they could not produce the documents during the trial stage and that the petitioners are not entitled to file the documents at this stage, about 12 years after filing of the suit. 4. It is not disputed that the appeal is still pending. The said application is filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to file certain documents by way of additional evidence. 5. In a decision reported in STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. T.N.SAHANI AND OTHERS[1], the Supreme Court held as follows: “"It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkatammaiah v. Seetharama Reddy, , pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27 (c) that though there might well be cases where even though the Court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the Court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27 (b) CPC can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law." 6. The above decision was followed by this Court in V.RANGA REDDY v. C.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY AND ANOTHER[2], wherein it was held as follows: 7………..However, it is always desirable, as held by the Supreme Court, to take into consideration the documents sought to be received along with the hearing of the appeal. Any conclusion arrived at would only amount to a premature conclusion, which may sometimes cause prejudice to the case of either party….. 7. In view of the above decisions, the disposal of I.A.No.530 of 2010 by the impugned order, even before taking up the appeal for hearing, is considered inappropriate. In that view of the matter and following the principles laid down in the above decisions, the impugned order is held liable to be set aside and hence it is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.530 of 2010 stands restored. It is open to both parties to urge their respective contentions, regarding the documents sought to be filed by way of additional evidence, at the time of hearing of the appeal and the learned Judge, Family Court, shall consider the contentions and dispose of I.A.No.530 of 2010 on its own merits along with the appeal. 8. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th August, 2011. Tsy [1] (2001) 10 SCC 619 [2] 2005 (2) ALD 629