Jamalapuram Sambashiva Rao vs Jamalapuram Ravinder Rao
2025 Latest Caselaw 782 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 782 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Jamalapuram Sambashiva Rao vs Jamalapuram Ravinder Rao on 3 January, 2025

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4005 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

29.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.267 of 2024 in A.S.No.115 of 2022

(Old A.S.No.181 of 2018) by the Principal District Judge,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

2. Heard Sri Shashank Garige, learned counsel for the

petitioner. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation

on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material placed on

record.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he has filed a

suit in O.S.No.71 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Parkal (for short, 'the trial Court'), for eviction and recovery

of arrears of rent from the respondents and the trial Court vide

judgment dated 15.06.2016 dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved by

the judgment dated 15.06.2016, the petitioner has preferred

A.S.No.181 of 2018 before the first appellate Court and it was

subsequently numbered as A.S.No.115 of 2022. Pending hearing

of the Appeal Suit, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.1652 of 2021,

72 of 2023 and 215 of 2023 to receive documents and the same

LNA, J

were pending for adjudication. It is contended that without

deciding the applications filed by the petitioner to receive

documents, the first appellate Court posted the matter on

29.10.2024 for judgment. It is further contended that since the

applications to receive documents were not decided, the petitioner

filed another I.A.No.267 of 2024. However, the first appellate

Court dismissed I.A.No.267 of 2024 vide order dated 29.11.2024

with an observation that the pending I.As., would be decided along

with the Appeal Suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the

documents sought to be filed by the petitioner are crucial to

substantiate the case of the petitioner and are necessary for

proper adjudication of the matter. However, the first appellate

Court, instead of considering the applications and deciding the

same, has erroneously posted the appeal for judgment, which is

improper and contrary to the settled principle of law. Further,

learned counsel prays this Court to allow the present Civil

Revision Petition and pass appropriate orders directing the first

appellate Court to first adjudicate the applications filed by the

petitioner to receive the documents and thereafter, take up the

appeal for hearing.

LNA, J

5. Perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner has

filed O.S.No.71 of 2010 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent

from the respondents, who are none other than the brothers of the

petitioner and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on

15.06.2016 after elaborate trial and with a specific observation

that the petitioner has failed to prove that the property was self

acquired property and that the respondents have also right in

property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed

A.S.No.181 of 2018 before the first appellate Court and it was

subsequently numbered as A.S.No.115 of 2022 and when the

matter was coming up for arguments, the petitioner has filed three

applications i.e., I.A.No.215 of 2023 to receive property tax

receipts dated 11.03.2023, 20.07.2024, I.A.No.72 of 2023 to

receive ownership certificate dated 10.08.2009 by way of

additional evidence and I.A.No.1652 of 2021 to receive certified

copy of order and decree dated 04.11.1985 in O.S.No.91 of 1981

and also consider the documents sought to be relied upon by the

petitioner, which are pending for adjudication.

6. It is also evident that earlier, the petitioner has filed

I.A.Nos.131 of 2023, 175 of 2024 and 247 of 2024 and the same

LNA, J

were disposed of on 13.09.2023 and 17.10.2024 and the appeal

was posted for judgment.

7. At that stage, the petitioner filed present I.A.No.267 of 2024

seeking to reopen the appeal suit and the first appellate Court, by

specifically observing that the petitioner was not proceeding with

the appeal and has been filing applications one after the other

only to drag the matter and therefore, dismissed the application.

8. The first appellate Court had observed that the documents

sought to be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, which are property

tax receipts, dated 11.03.2023, 20.07.2023 and has specifically

observed that those documents are subsequent to judgment

passed on 15.06.2016 and the same will be considered while

deciding the appeal. However, the Court has specifically observed

that I.A.Nos.1652 of 2021, 72 of 2023 and 215 of 2023 will be

considered along with the appeal.

9. It is settled principle that the applications filed to receive

documents in appeal can also be decided along with the appeal

and on examination, if documents sought to be filed are found

relevant and crucial for proper adjudication of appeal, the

LNA, J

Appellate Court may allow such documents as provided under

Order XLI Rule 27, which reads as under:

27. 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, or 2[(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.