THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3806 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order, dated 30.12.2008 in I.A.No.1536 of 2009 in A.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/appellant to receive the documents by way of additional evidence on the ground that the petitioner was having knowledge about the existence of all the documents, which were sought to be received as additional evidence during pendency of trial of the suit, but he failed to take any steps to summon those documents. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned lower appellate Judge ought to have considered the application of the petitioner with reference to Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and that the additional evidence sought to be received would enable the lower appellate Court to pronounce the judgment for rendering substantial justice and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. On this aspect, he relied on the decision reported in M/S.EASTERN EQUIPMENT & SALES LIMITED v. ING. YASH KUMAR KHANNA[1]. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was having knowledge about the existence of all the documents during pendency of the suit in the trial Court itself, but he had not filed, and therefore, the lower appellate Court rightly dismissed the impugned application and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, no doubt, permits the Appellate Court to receive additional evidence. But, receipt of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not a matter of course. Unless the petitioner satisfies any one of the following requirements under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence shall not be received at the appellate stage. (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. 5. The impugned application filed to receive certain documents, namely, study certificates, voters list, wedding card and service record, as additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner/appellant in the lower appellate Court, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was having knowledge about the existence of those documents during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court but failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining them. The said aspect has not been denied or disputed. There is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the application that existence of those documents was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, when the suit was pending before the trial Court. Except stating that the petitioner is filing certain documents to be received as additional evidence, no other cause is shown. As seen from the averments mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the case does not attract any one of the requirements mentioned in Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC. Therefore, the lower appellate Court rightly dismissed the same. There is no illegality in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court. 6. In M/S.EASTERN EQUIPMENT & SALES LIMITED’s case, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, (1 supra), the Supreme Court held as follows: (para 5) “5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that in order to decide the pending appeal in which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed ought to have been taken by the appellate Court along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter and without going into the merits as to whether the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly rejected by the Appellate Court as well as by the High Court, we set aside the order of the High Court as well as of the appellate Court rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we direct that the appellate Court shall decide the pending appeal along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on merits within a period of three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to the appellate court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.” The above decision would go to show that the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has to be decided in the first instance on merits and thereafter, hearing of the appeal has to be taken up. Therefore, the lower appellate Court has rightly taken up the impugned application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in the first instance and decided the same on merits. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J 2nd NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni [1] AIR 2008 SC 2360