THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3551 AND 3553 OF 2009. DATED:04-08-2009. Between: Cheekoti Muralidhar …Petitioner and 1.Gulam Mohiuddin and 3 others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3551 AND 3553 OF 2009. COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are filed against the common order, dated 29-06-2009, in I.A. Nos. 137 and 138 of 2009 in A.S.No.34 of 2005, on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(aa) CPC to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to receive Xerox copy of the agreement of sale, receipt and partition deed as additional evidence as well as secondary evidence, were dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the three documents sought to be filed are essential for unfolding the case of the plaintiff, that with regard to agreement of sale, a notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been issued, but original has not been produced and therefore, Xerox copies have to be marked. 3. The suit was filed in the year 1999 for a direction to the defendants to register the house property in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 31-08-1997. The said suit was dismissed in the year 2005. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar, and the same is pending. The present applications were filed in the month of June, 2009 to receive additional evidence for the first time Receipt of additional evidence by the Appellate Court is a matter of course. Unless anyone of the three conditions as laid down under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are fulfilled, additional evidence cannot be received. The provision under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is mandatory, which reads thus: Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court:- (1) 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, of (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. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” The case of the petitioner does not fall under anyone of the categories mentioned above. When the suit was pending for five years in the trial Court, the petitioner was not diligent in producing the documents now sought to be received as additional evidence. Similarly, he was not diligent in filing such applications when the appeal is pending for the last five years before the Appellate Court. When the appeal seems to have come up for hearing, the present applications appear to have been filed only to drag on the proceedings. As the petitioner failed to show that his case falls under anyone of the clauses mentioned above, question of receiving the additional evidence does not arise. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly dismissed the applications and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:04-08-2009 Hsd