Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Uggumudi Chandra Reddy Another vs Palagani Krishna Reddy on 11 August, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5773 of 2016
O R D E R:
1. I have heard both sides. This civil revision petition is
filed under Article 227 of Indian Constitution to set aside th
Orders passed by the learned VII-Addl., District & Sessions
Judge, Gudur in IA.No.206 of 2016 in AS.No.116 of 2016.
2. The petitioners herein who are appellants in AS
No.116 of 2016 filed petition under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to
receive the documents mentioned in the list as an
additional evidence, which petition has taken up for hearing
by the learned trial Judge independently and dismissed the
same. On perusal of records, which shows that at the first
instance, the respondent herein filed suit OS.No.140 of
1999 seeking permanent injunction against the
petitioners/appellants which was decreed. Against which,
the petitioners preferred AS No.1 of 2006 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Then, the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Gudur allowed the appeal suit along with additional
evidence petition and remanded the appeal suit to trial
Court for fresh disposal as per Judgment, dated
06.03.2012. Against which, the respondent/plaintiff
preferred CMA No.728 of 2012 before this Court and then
this Court allowed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and remanded
the matter back to the appellate Court with an observation
that "accordingly, this CMA is allowed and the matter is
remanded back to the appellate Court for fresh disposal of
the additional evidence petition in the first instance and
then proceed to decide the appeal each in accordance with
law. All the miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. No costs". Then after establishment of
Additional District Court at Gudur, the appeal suit has been
made over to VII-Addl., District & Sessions Judge, Gudur
and re-numbered as AS No.116 of 2016. As per the Orders
of this Court in CMA No.728 of 2012, the learned appellate
Judge has independently taken up the petition filed by the
petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and dismissed the
petition.
3. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the
documents which they filed along with petition are essential
to prove their case, which wrongly dismissed by the trial
Court. During the course of hearing of this civil revision
petition, the learned Advocates representing both parties
fairly submitted that additional evidence petition has to be
disposed of along with appeal suit and not independently.
For which, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners
also relied on a decision in State of Rajasthan, Appellant
vs. T.N.Sahani and others 1 . Respondents, wherein it is
held at para 4, which reads as under:
"It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in
K.Venkataramiah v.Seetharama Reddy pointed out the scope of
unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27 (c) that though there
might well be cases where even though the court found that it
was able to pronounced the judgment on the state of the record
as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to
enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in
the interest of justice something which remained obscure should
be filled up so entirely for the court to consider at the time of
hearing of the appeal on additional evidence, need be looked
into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If
that be so, it is always open to the court to look into the
documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41
Rule 27 (b) CPC can be invoked. So the application under 41
Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had
the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the
judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would
have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been
dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application
before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be
inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the
application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot,
therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The
application is restored to its file. The High Court will now
consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter
afresh in accordance with law".
4. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners also
relied on a decision in Md.Yousufiddin vs.Md.Masiuddin
and others 2 , wherein this Court held that application for
additional evidence to be considered along with the appeal
itself as then only the appellate Court can appreciate the
(2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 619
2011 (3) ALT 392
relevancy of the evidence sought to be produced and decide
on the question whether petitioner satisfies the ingredients
of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
5. On perusal of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and this Court in the decisions relied on by the
learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, which makes it
clear that application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to
receive additional evidence has to be dealt with along with
appeal suit not independently by following procedure laid
down under law. Though, the learned Judge in CMA No.728
of 2012 observed that additional evidence petition has to be
disposed of first instance and then proceed to decide the
appeal, which doesn't mean that it has to be decided
independently. Therefore, without going into the merits of
the case, this Court is of an opinion that the petition filed by
the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC shall be disposed
of along with appeal suit.
6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Orders
passed by the learned VII-Addl., District & Sessions Judge,
Gudur in IA.No.206 of 2016 in AS.No.116 of 2016 is hereby
set aside with a direction to restore the IA.No.206 of 2016
to file and dispose of the same along with AS.No.116 of
2016 by following the procedure laid down under Order 41,
Rule 27 CPC. The learned VII-Addl., District & Sessions
Judge, Gudur is requested to dispose of the appeal suit as
expeditiously as possible within Three (3) months from the
date of receipt of this Order. No order as to costs.
___________________________________
JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
Date :11.08.2022
Bsv
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
C.R.P.No.5773 of 2016
Date : 11.08.2022
Bsv
