THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4964 of 2009 Date: 05-02-2010 Between Naraharisetti Kameswaramma … Petitioner/Petitioner/ Appellant and 1. Kurakula Rattaiah and another … Respondents/Respondents/ Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4964 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sabbineni Venugopal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The revision is directed against the order and decretal order dated 25-8-2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna district in dismissing the application in I.A.No.397 of 2009 in A.S.No.4 of 2008 filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC seeking to receive the documents. 3. The petitioner herein is the appellant-defendant and the respondents are the respondents-plaintiffs before the lower appellate Court/trial Court. 4. The limited scope of this revision is as to whether the documents sought to be received by the lower appellate Court under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC is justified or not ? 5. A perusal of Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC would only make it clear that subject to the conditions mentioned in the said provision, the documents, which have been filed before the trial Court or the documents, which were rejected to be received by the trial Court during the trial, can always be sought to be received by the appellate Court. Of course, such receipt of the documents cannot be by mere asking. The relevancy or otherwise of such documents has to be examined necessarily. But, at the threshold, it may not always be possible for the court to reject the documents. Therefore, it is desirable for the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and pass appropriate orders. 6. In the present case, not much of the reasoning has been accorded by the lower appellate Court while dismissing the application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC. The relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be received can be decided only when the appeal is heard. Therefore, it is expedient for the lower appellate Court to examine the documents and their relevancy for the purpose of deciding the appeal, only during the hearing of the appeal. 7. For the aforementioned, I am of the considered view that the lower appellate Court is not justified in rejecting the application at the threshold. Any conclusions arrived at by the lower appellate Court at the initial stage would be rather perfunctory, which is not proper. 8. Hence and for the foregoing, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the lower appellate Court is directed to receive the documents that are sought to be filed by the defendant and examine the same along with hearing of the appeal and record its own findings on merits and relevancy of the documents either way. 9. In the result, the revision is allowed with the above observations and directions, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 05th February, 2010. Ak