THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No. 5346 of 2011 O R D E R: Petitioner is the defendant No.2 in the suit – O.S. No. 30 of 2009 filed by 1st respondent on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. 1st respondent – plaintiff filed the said suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and, in the pending suit, he has filed I.A. No. 157 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction and the trial Court granted temporary injunction vide order dated 25.8.2009. As against the said order granting temporary injunction, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A. No. 12 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. In the pending C.M.A., 1st respondent-plaintiff filed an application – I.A. No. 158 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for receipt of certified copy of the order of the Tahsildar dismissing the petition of defendant No.1 dated 2.8.2008 and another certified copy of the settlement deed executed in favour of D-3’s son by D-1 and D-2 dated 3.9.1997. It was the case of the 1st respondent - plaintiff before the lower appellate Court that in fact the said documents are filed before the Court below, but, due to inadvertence, the said documents were not marked by the lower Court while hearing the injunction application – I.A. No. 157 of 2009; therefore, they are sought to be received as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But, if (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, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. Thus, under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, if the documents are produced before the appellate Court and if the appellate Court is of the opinion that the said documents are required for pronouncement of the judgment or for deciding any substantial issue, it may allow such evidence. I am of the opinion that receipt of evidence during the course of regular trial is distinct and different from receipt of evidence while considering the injunction application. In the instant case, the injunction application filed by the plaintiff was considered and injunction was granted. As against the same, petitioner herein filed an appeal. It is not in dispute that the documents which are sought to be marked in the appeal filed against the injunction order are also filed before the trial Court and as per the contention of the 1st respondent herein, the said documents are required to be considered in the appeal, as the application filed by the 1st defendant before the Tahsildar for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deed was dismissed. It has material bearing on the crucial issue to be decided whether the 1st respondent - plaintiff is entitled for injunction or not and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court rightly allowed the said application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error or infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order dated 1.10.2010 passed by the lower appellate Court warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH J. DATE: 01-4-2011. MVB.