IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2312 OF 2008 Between: Somala Prabhakara Rao and others … Petitioners And Palakurthi Varadnam and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2312 OF 2008 ORDER: - This revision under Article 227 of the constitution to revise the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Gudivada in I.A.No.118 of 2008 in A.S.No.43 of 2006, dated 22.04.2008. Respondents/plaintiffs, who instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and which was decreed partly for refund of the amount paid in advance, preferred the above appeal for not granting the relief of specific performance and filed the impugned I.A. under Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 151 of CPC for receiving the documents viz., Notice issued by SBI, Gudivada in favour of Somala Samuel, SBI Passbook of Somala Samuel, Pattadar passbooks of Palukurthi Vardanamma, three Land Revenue Tax Receipts after condoning the delay stating that at the time of trial they could not file those documents in spite of their best efforts; that the trial court also commented about non filing of the documents; that thereafter they made a thorough search with the old records and could trace the listed documents, which are to be received as an additional evidence. Petitioners/defendants filed counter stating that document Nos.1 and 2 belongs to the father of respondent No.1 and they are not relevant for the purpose of granting the relief in the appeal; document No.3 is the attested copy of pattadar pass books, which are attested copies; document Nos.4 to 6 are land revenue receipts, which are attested copies, and out of them document Nos.5 and 6 are dated 03.01.2006, which are subsequent to the filing of the appeal and document No.4 is dated 11.09.2005 which is during the pendency of the suit and the same are not at all relevant to decide the dispute. The lower appellate court without assigning any reasons allowed the petition stating that perused the petition and counter and noticed all the documents are public documents and hence, the petition is allowed. Time and again, it is stated that the trial Court has to give reasons either for allowing the application or for dismissing, so that when a challenge to the order is made, the appellate court or revisional court can know the reasons behind the allowing of the appeal. The trial court cannot expect that appellate court or revisional court will assign reasons in substantiation of their finding. The manner in which the lower appellate court decided the I.A. does not commended appreciation from this Court. The lower appellate Court has not taken into consideration Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in receiving the additional evidence particularly Rule 1(a)(a) viz., 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. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate court to decide the same afresh by giving reasons. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed remitting the matter to the lower appellate court to decide the same afresh by giving reasons. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J December 22, 2010 lmv