HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2170 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in I.A. No.67 of 2011 in A.S. No.74 of 2009 dated 23.03.2011. I.A. No.67 of 2011 is a petition filed by the petitioner- appellant, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, requesting the appellate Court to receive the certified copies, of his land ceiling declarations and that of the respondent; the personal account book maintained by him; study-cum-date of birth certificate belonging to the respondent and other brother Yellappa Reddy, as additional evidence in the appeal. The Court below took note of the petitioner’s contention that the personal account book was misplaced in the house; it was traced recently; the certified copy of declaration and study certificates were obtained recently from the concerned authorities; the documents were essential to prove his case; and, if the documents were not received, he would be put to loss and hardship. The counsel for the respondent contended before the Court below that the reasons for failure to produce the documents were not clearly mentioned by the petitioner in his affidavit; no attempt was made by the petitioner to secure the alleged documents at the stage of trial itself; nothing prevented the petitioner to obtain the documents and produce before the Court below; and the petitioner, despite having an opportunity to produce the documents before the trial Court, had, with an intention to delay and drag on the matter, filed the said documents at the stage of appeal. The Court below, in the order under revision, held that the suit was filed in the year 2003 for declaration of right and title of the petitioner over the suit schedule property; the petitioner had not pleaded regarding the personal note book and the declarations before the land ceiling officer in the lower Court; no attempt was made by the petitioner to secure the land ceiling declarations, the date of birth and study certificates of the respondent; the petitioner had ample opportunity to plead and produce these documents but had not availed the opportunity; and there was no proof to show that he tried to secure the documents. The Court below found no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. On the ground that the application was highly belated, the Court below dismissed the petition. Before this Court, Sri S.D.Gowd, Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, would vehemently contend that the reasons stated in the affidavit were not considered by the Court below; it was swayed by the merits of the dispute; this Court ought to direct the Court below to entertain the petition with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to meet the ends of justice; and, the petitioner, being old and infirm, could not produce the documents before the Court below. In the affidavit, filed in support of the I.A., the only ground taken for not submitting the documents before the trial Court was that the account book was misplaced at the time of trial; the said book could not be traced; the book was traced in the old papers recently; and the certified copies of declarations and study certificates were secured from the authorities recently. Under Order 41 Rule 27 (aa) of the CPC, the party seeking to produce additional evidence is required to establish that, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. Except to state that the documents were misplaced in the house, and the certified copies of the land ceiling declaration and the school leaving certificates were obtained recently, no reasons were furnished by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in producing these documents, that too, at the stage of appeal. The rule aforementioned requires the petitioner to establish that, despite due diligence, the said documents could not be produced before the trial Court. The Court below has, on a detailed examination of the surrounding circumstances, come to the conclusion that the application was highly belated and reflected lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner. Revision proceedings, it is well settled, is not an appeal against the order of the Court below and the test which this Court is required to apply is whether the discretion exercised by the Court below is reasonable or not. It cannot be said that the order of the Court below is so palpably erroneous as to necessitate interference in revision proceedings. Even otherwise, no reasons are stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. as to why the land ceiling declarations and the school leaving certificates could not have been obtained from the concerned authorities during the pending of the suit, when they are said to have been procured from the said authorities at the stage of appeal. It also defies reason as to how the documents kept in their house could not be traced despite due diligence for a period in excess of six years. Viewed from any angle, the order of the Court below does not necessitate interference. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:23.06.2011 Usd