THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2746 of 2011 November 04, 2011 Between: Mehar Rajkumari, W/o.D.M.B. Bhavani Singh ... Petitioner And Kothapalli Krishnamurthy, S/o.Jagapathi Rao And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2746 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by the Court of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry in I.A.No.707 of 2007 in A.S. No.17 of 2006. The petitioner is the respondent in the first appeal and plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner filed O.S.No.235 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Her case was that the properties were owned by her father; she along with defendants 5 and 6 is entitled to the property; and the respondents 1 to 4 herein (defendants 1 to 4) trespassed into the schedule property. The defendants 1 to 4 opposed the suit and set up Wills dated 15.2.2000 and 09.8.2000 in their favour. After regular trial, the suit was decreed by the trial Court, aggrieved by which the respondents 1 to 4 filed A.S.No.17 of 2006. While the matter was pending, they filed I.A.No.707 of 2007 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by allowing them to examine two witnesses to prove Ex.B2 Will dated 09.8.2000. It appears that in April, 2011 the first appellate Court passed an order observing that the said application would be considered along with main appeal. However, on 24.6.2011 the application was allowed directing the respondents 1 to 4 to adduce additional evidence of two witnesses they wanted to examine. The only point urged and to be decided in this civil revision petition is whether it was proper for the Court below to decide the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC separately. The answer must be in the negative. It is now well settled that any application by a party to the proceedings to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC has to be decided along with main appeal (State of Rajasthan v T.N.Sahani[1]). On this limited ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the lower appellate Court with an observation that I.A.No.707 of 2007 shall be considered along with main appeal. The appeal may be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) November 04, 2011 YS [1] (2001) 10 SCC 619