IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4809 OF 2008 Between:: J.Sudarshan and others …Petitioners A n d J.Saradamma and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4809 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.08.2008 in I.A.No.149 of 2007 in A.S.No.92 of 2005, on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the appellants, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to file certified copies of S.L.R and fair adangal by way of additional evidence, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No.120 of 1981 before the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the petitioners herein for partition and separate possession. The said O.S.No.120 of 1981 was re-numbered as O.S.No.5 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. By judgment and decree dated 13.07.2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.92 of 2005 before the VII-Additional District Judge, Madanapelle. While the matter was coming up for hearing, the petitioners filed I.A.No.149 of 2007 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to file certified copies of S.L.R and fair adangal and registration extracts of sale deeds which are said to be pertaining to the suit land, by way of additional evidence. The respondents herein opposed the said application. By order dated 05.08.2008, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the said application, observing that filing of the petition about 2½ years after filing of the appeal and that too at the stage of hearing, does not merit consideration and is outside the ambit of order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the present civil revision petition. 4. As the appeal is pending, it is considered neither prudent nor desirable to go into the merits of the matter and deliberate on the relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be filed by way of additional evidence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention to a decision in STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. T.N.SAHANI AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Apex Court held that an application XLI Rule 27 CPC shall be decided along with the appeal. It was observed that “this is entirely for the Court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner”. It was further observed “had the Court found the documents necessary in appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same, if not the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate”. In the light of the above observations made by the Apex Court, it is considered that the impugned order, dismissing the application, is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. It is open to the learned Additional District Judge to consider the relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought to be filed and whether they are required to be looked into or not at the time of disposal of the appeal without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order or any of the observations made hereinabove. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and consequently I.A.No.149 of 2007 stands restored to file and the appellate Court is directed to consider the said I.A on its own merits along with the appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 1981, the learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY 29th September, 2011 Lrkm [1] (2001) 10 SCC 619