HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.620 OF 2011 DATE:04-03-2011 BETWEEN G.Narmada Acharya …Petitioner AND Rayapati Kranthi …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.620 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is filed to revise the order, dated 23.12.2010 passed by VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada in allowing I.A.No.476 of 2008 in A.S.No.297 of 2006 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The respondent-plaintiff, who is the appellant filed the above I.A. to receive the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada as additional evidence in the appeal as it is relevant and bearing in deciding the lis between the parties. On allowing the same, the present revision is filed contending that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 invariably has to be considered along with the main appeal itself but before hearing the appeal, the said I.A. cannot be allowed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. T.N.Sahani and Others[1] and also the judgment of this Court in Kotha Sathyamma and others v. Irukula Praveen Kumar and others[2]. In both the cases, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was rejected even before hearing the appeal and it was held that unless the appeal is taken up for hearing, it will not be known whether the document produced is necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner or not. Therefore, the said practice of dismissing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. before hearing the appeal was held to be not proper. The said judgments are misplaced to the facts of the present case. The petitioner cannot have any grievance against allowing the impugned I.A. since it is purely a discretionary order passed by the lower Court. The petitioner will have an opportunity to put forth his claim that the said judgment sought to be produced as additional evidence has no relevance to the facts of the present case and even if the appeal is decided against the petitioner basing on that evidence, he can question the same in a further appeal to be filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court. In that view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in allowing the impugned I.A. does not suffer from any manifest illegality or irregularity to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 04, 2011 Tsr. [1] (2001) 10 SCC 619 [2] 2005 (5) ALT 13