Telangana High Court
Mala Pippera Sayanna vs G.V. Narsareddy on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.23 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri N. Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated
02.12.2022, passed in I.A.No.193 of 2021 in A.S.No.114 of
2018, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nirmal. The
said application was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Dilawarpur Mandal, to appear before the Court to give
additional evidence along with the entire records pertaining to
Proc.Nos.ROR/28/89, dated 10.11.1998, covered by Ex.A1
Proc.No.B/1495/2005, dated 31.05.2004.
4. The said application was construed as an application filed
under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. by the lower appellate Court
and the same was dismissed by order dated 02.12.2022, on the
ground that the ingredients, as required under Rule 27 Order
XLI C.P.C., are not satisfied. If the application in question is to
be construed under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., the same is
required to be decided along with the main appeal, but under no
circumstances, the same can be disposed of independently and
the same is required to be considered along with the main
appeal.
5. In this regard, the law is well settled and the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another1 held
as under:
"52. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that
application for taking additional evidence on record at
an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of
the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of
the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the
evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion
that additional evidence was required to be taken on
record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any
other substantial cause. In case, application for taking
additional evidence on record has been considered and
allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order
being a product of total and complete non-application of
mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be
taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not,
remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be
ignored."
6. In the circumstances, the order passed by the lower
appellate Court disposing of the application filed under Order
XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. independently while keeping the appeal
(2012) 8 SCC 148
pending is totally unsustainable and the same is required to be
decided along with the main appeal.
7. However, from the perusal of the relief that is sought in
the application in question i.e., I.A.No.193 of 2021, it appears
that the same is an application filed seeking production of the
record from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dilawarpur Mandal, as
an additional evidence.
8. Hence, the lower appellate Court is directed to
re-appreciate the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon
and in case, if the lower appellate Court comes to the
conclusion that the said application is in effect as the one to
adduce additional evidence, the same can be considered and
disposed of along with the main appeal. However, it is made
clear that in case, if the lower appellate Court comes to the
conclusion that this is an application summoning the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Dilawarpur Mandal, the same can be
considered separately and appropriate orders be passed
accordingly.
9. In the light of the above, the civil revision petition is
allowed and the order under revision is set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the Principal District Judge, Nirmal, in
terms of the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, filed in this civil
revision petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
Date:21.04.2023
KH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.23 of 2023
Date:21.04.2023
KH
