IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.515 of 2008 BETWEEN: P. Narsimha Rao and another. ... PETITIONERS AND G. Suryanarayana and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. K. CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents : ---NONE APPEARED--- The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is by the respondents in A.S.No.21 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram. Under the impugned order dated 12.12.2007 the application being I.A.No.866 of 2007 filed by the respondents herein (appellants in the said appeal) for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was considered and allowed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the respondents in the said appeal. 2. On directions of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken out notices by RPAD and has filed proof of service. Nobody, however, appears for the respondents. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Though the legality of the impugned order of the lower appellate court allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is questioned by the petitioners on several grounds, it is not necessary to deal with same in view of the fact that the lower appellate Court has taken up and decided the application for additional evidence without hearing the appeal itself. It is well settled that the application for additional evidence must be considered along with the appeal; thereby the lower appellate Court would be in a better position to appreciate whether permission to adduce additional evidence sought for by the party is warranted or not and whether the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are satisfied by such party or not (see STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. T.N. SAHANI [(2001) 10 SCC 619]. 5. In view of the same, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the lower appellate Court to hear and decide the appeal itself. While hearing the appeal, it is open for the lower appellate Court to consider the request of the respondents herein made in I.A.No.866 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, on its own merits. Since the appeal is of the year 2006, the lower appellate Court shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal within 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 July 29, 2010 DSK