HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5059 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITON (SR) No.30335 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner filed O.S. No.6 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, against the respondents for the relief of dissolution of the 1st respondent firm and redemption of accounts and other ancillary reliefs. The suit was decreed on 06-09-2005. Respondents 1 and 2 filed AS No.38 of 2005 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool at Nandyal. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents filed I.A. No.773 of 2006 under Rule - 27 of Order - XLI CPC with a prayer to receive the certificates of death of two deceased partners, as additional evidence. According to them, the petitioner was supposed to furnish the information relating to the death of any of the partners, but maintained silence and the important aspect as to limitation was not taken into account by the trial Court. The application was opposed by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 18-03-2008, the trail Court allowed the I.A. 2. As a sequel to the order in I.A. No.773 of 2006, respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A. No.258 of 2010 under Rule – 28 of Order – XLI CPC with a prayer to permit them to examine the witnesses vis-à-vis the documents that were received as additional evidence. The I.A. was opposed by the petitioner and through its order dated 05-10-2010, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, these two revisions. 3. Heard Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Soma Konda Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 4. O.S. No.6 of 2002, filed by the petitioner, was decreed and the appeal against the decree is pending before the lower appellate Court. Respondents 1 and 2, who preferred the appeal, wanted to establish that the 1st respondent firm stood dissolved with the death of two of its partners and that the suit filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. It is true that the petitioner mentioned that two partners of the 1st respondent firm died before the suit was filed. However, the plaint was silent as to the dates of death of the partners. The dates of death of the partners become relevant to determine the question of limitation. The respondents 1 and 2 wanted to apprise the Court of that information, since it would have direct bearing upon the very maintainability of suit. No exception can be taken to the order passed by the lower appellate Court, permitting the documents to be taken on record. The application filed under Rule – 28 of Order – XLI is almost a consequence. 5. The question as to whether the documents filed as additional evidence are true and what consequences would flow on account of the information so furnished, needs to be examined at the hearing of the appeal. The petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment or grievance. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision. 6. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 18, 2011. KTL/INL