THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4350 of 2009 Dated:- 08th February, 2011 Between:- Kolla Lakshmidevamma and others …Petitioners AND Ammuturi Papulamma …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4350 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 25.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.146 of 2008 by the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the respondent herein, under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., to receive additional evidence, was allowed. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the Court below failed to consider that the party seeking to adduce additional evidence must establish 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 and that the Court below was not justified in allowing the application filed by the petitioner therein/respondent herein. 3. I have gone through the material placed on record and the affidavit filed by the appellant therein/respondent herein in I.A.No.146 of 2008 before the Court below. Her case is that she applied to the Court below for grant of certified copies of the documents, but even before the copy of application could be filed, the file was sent to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and even before the copy of application to obtain the documents could be filed there, the file was sent to the District Court’s record room and in the said process, the copy of documents could not be produced before the Court below and that once again she had to file fresh application before the District Court for grant of certified copies, but again the file could not be traced at the District Court’s record room and that however, the copy was granted to her on 25.11.2008 and, therefore, she could not file the certified copy of judgment of the trial Court before the Court below, in O.S.No.292 of 1989 and that she wanted to file the documents, i.e., copy of judgment dated 19.02.1996 passed by the Principal District Munisif, Madanapalle in O.S.No.292 of 1989, certified copy of judgment in A.S.No.48 of 2000 dated 20.06.2009 and the certified copy of judgment and decree in A.S.No.51 of 1996. 4. The affidavit filed by the appellant therein/respondent herein before the Court below is lacking particulars such as the date on which the appellant therein/respondent herein field application to obtain the documents and the dates on which the file was sent from one Court to another or the SR number allotted by the Court below to the application filed by the appellant therein/respondent herein to obtain the documents etc. The appellant therein/ respondent herein must certainly establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, she could not produce the documents before the trial Court at the time when the decree appealed against her was passed. 5. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration of the matter. Both the parties, if so advised, may file fresh affidavits furnishing all the facts and particulars of the case, in support of their contentions. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 08th February, 2011 Bvv