IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4134 OF 2009 Between: Ganavarapu Laxmaiah …Petitioner A n d Smt.Ratna Kumari ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4134 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27-07-2009 in I.A.No.299 of 2009 in A.S.No.1 of 2009, on the file Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for receiving two documents viz., memorandum of partition dated 30-06-1992 and electricity service connection book and mark the same by way of additional evidence, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The respondent is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner filed written statement contesting the suit. After trial, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed A.S.No.1 of 2009. The petitioner filed I.A.No.299 of 2009 under Order XLI Rule 27 seeking permission to produce two documents viz., memorandum of partition dated 30-06-1992 said to have been entered into between the two sons of the petitioner and electricity service connection book by way of additional evidence. According to the petitioner, the suit property was subject matter of partition between his sons which was reduced into writing by way of memorandum of partition on 30-06- 1992 and that the petitioner is not owner of the suit property. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to produce the said memorandum of partition dated 30-06-1992 as additional evidence to substantiate his contention that the suit property was partitioned between his two sons. According to the petitioner, he could not produce the said document before the trial Court as the same was filed in E.P.No.37 of 2003 which was filed by one Srihari against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount. The said application was opposed by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the EP was pending before the same Court and nothing prevented the petitioner from taking steps to send for the said document from the file of E.P.No.37 of 2007 to the file of this suit and, therefore, the petitioner, who has not acted with due diligence cannot now be permitted to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage. The respondent further contended that the petitioner who is said to be an attestor of the said document was aware of the existence of the document ever since 1992. The petitioner-defendant is not disputing about his knowledge of the document but pleads that he could not file the same as it was not in his custody and that it was filed in E.P.No.37 of 2003. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner could not take steps in right time to send for the said documents from the file of E.P.No.37 of 2003. However, as it is contended by the petitioner that the document is having a vital bearing over the dispute pertaining to the ownership of the petitioner about the suit property, it is considered that the petitioner can be permitted to file certified copy of the said document. 4. The question as to whether or not the said document is relevant and whether or not it does have any bearing over the subject matter of the dispute, are matters that can be considered by the appellate Court at the time of hearing the appeal. There cannot be any tenable objection for filing the said document by way of additional evidence, subject to its appreciation at the appropriate stage. The other document viz., electricity service connection book was held to be not at all relevant by the appellate Court in the impugned order. In the affidavit filed in support of the application also, the petitioner has not stated anything pertaining to the said document as to how it is relevant and why he could not file the same during the trial of the suit. The impugned order to the extent it holds that the said document i.e., electricity service connection book is not at all relevant and, therefore, cannot be received by way of additional evidence, does not call for any interference. However, the petitioner-defendant is permitted to file the first document viz., memorandum of partition on 30-06-1992 subject to appreciation of the same by the appellate Court at an appropriate stage by way of additional evidence. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th March, 2011 Lrkm.