APHC010212272024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1240/2024 Between: 1. VENNA VIJAYA CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE, PEDDAPURAM, TEMPORARILY CAME DOWN TO KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LANKA MARIDI MAHALAKSHMI, W/o Ramesh, Aged 23 years, Pedddapuram ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order in I.A.No.3078 of 2015 in A.S.No.11/2015, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram, and accord permission to me to file the documents i.e. certified copy or of the decree and judgement in O.S.No.14/2007, on the file of PJCJ, Peddapuram, and Original Will, dated 10-07-2000, executed by Lanka Maridayya, and be received as additional evidence. Otherwise, I will be put to serious loss, and pass 2 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in A.S.No.11/2015, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENNA KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. A S C BOSE The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1246/2024 Between: 1. VENNA VIJAYACHAKRAVARTHI, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE, PEDDAPURAM, TEMPORARILY CAME DOWN TO KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LANKA MARIDI MAHALAKSHMI, W/o Ramesh Aged 23 years, Pedddapuram. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order in I.A.No.3079 of 2015 in A.S.No.11/2015, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram, and direct the Appellate Court to send the said document along with Ex. B-5 Will date 30-04- 2003 in O.S.No.936/2011 in A.S.No.11/2015 on the file of VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Peddapuram, for expert opinion and decide the Appeal on merits in due course of Law. Otherwise, I will be put to serious loss IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all the proceedings in A.S.No.11/2015, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (FTC) Peddapuram, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENNA KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for the Respondent: 4 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 1. A S C BOSE The Court made the following: 5 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 ORDER This C.R.P.No.1240 of 2024 is filed against the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.3078 of 2015 in A.S.No.11 of 2015 passed by the VII Additional district Judge(FTC), Peddapuram, dismissing the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C seeking to receive the documents filed thereto as a additional evidence. 2. This C.R.P.No.1246 of 2024 is filed against the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.3079 of 2015 in A.S.No.11 of 2015 passed by the VII Additional district Judge(FTC), Peddapuram, dismissing the petition filed for sending the document to handwriting expert to give opinion. 3. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.936 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. Since the parties in both the cases is one and the same and the issue involved in both the CRPs are inter-related, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 6 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 5. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.936 of 2011 for relief of specific performance basing on the registered possessory agreement dated 26.09.2006 said to have been executed by the defendant and for a direction to the defendant to execute a regular sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee, within the time fixed by the Court. The defendant filed his written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance, on the ground that the plaintiff is aware of the regular possessory agreement of GPA and intended not to act upon the same; the defendant has withdrawn the GPA-cum-possessory agreement of sale but the original document of the possessory agreement-cum-GPA is with the defendant along with the title deeds, which is nominal document and not to intend to act upon the alleged subject document, unsupported by valid consideration. After an exhaustive trial, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. Assailing the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.11 of 2015. Pending the said appeal, the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.3078 of 2015, seeking permission to file the documents viz., i) Certified copy of the decree in 7 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 O.S.No.14 of 2007 on the file of PJCJ, Pedhapuram and judgment in O.S.No.14 of 2007 on the file of PJCJ, Pedhapuram and ii) Original Will dated 10.07.2000 executed by Lanka Maridayya and to receive them as additional evidence in the appeal. 6. The appellate Court, referring to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court grossly erred in dismissing the petition filed for receiving additional evidence, without taking into consideration the factual matrix of events which transpired over the period of time. He further submits that the appellate Court misread the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order under revisions is well founded and it does not suffer from any illegality. 8 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, 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 (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) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 11. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that when a party is unable to produce the evidence in the trial Court under the circumstances enumerated in Rule 27, he should be allowed to produce the same in an appellate Court, subject to the conditions laid down in Rule 27. Further, Section 107 (1) (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, empowers the Appellate Court to take the documents as additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken which is an exception to the general Rule. 12. Clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order XLI empowers the appellate Court to receive additional evidence at 9 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 the appellate stage, if the party seeking to produce additional evidence satisfies the court that, in spite of exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed against him. 13. A thorough reading of the material on record and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is evident that the defendant raised certain new pleas, with regard to the execution of a Will yet to have been executed by Lanka Maridayya which is disputed by the petitioner as sham and nominal document which is not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is the case of the petitioner that he found registered Will executed by Lanka Maridayya on 10.07.2000 containing the original LTMs of Maridayya in the previous suit file O.S.No.14 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff against the Lanka Apparao and his son which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 26.03.2007. It is also the case of the petitioner is that disputing the 1st page of the alleged Will dated 30.04.2003 marked as Exhibit B5 which is intended to be sent for expert opinion. All these circumstances can be considered to be the circumstances enumerated in Clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order XLI. The appellate Court 10 VS,J C.R.P.NOS.1240 & 1246 OF 2024 failed to take into consideration all these circumstances while deciding the petition for additional evidence even no reasons are assigned for dismissing the petition. The conclusions are arrived at by the appellate Court in dismissing the petition is justifiable and the same is suffered from serious infirmity or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. 14. Therefore, the orders under revisions are liable to be set- aside. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the order dated 22.03.2024 in I.A.No.3078 of 2015 and I.A.No.3079 of 2015 in A.S.No.11 of 2015 are hereby set aside. However, the Appellate Court shall consider the application filed for additional evidence on its own merits, in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 107 of CPC, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:27.11.2025 LSP