1 APHC010469092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2433/2025 Between: 1. SAMA SREENIVASULU, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED 64 YEARS, EX MANDAL PRESIDENT AND CULTIVATION, R/O. WARDS 1 TO 3,KOTHA MADHAVARAM, SIDHOUTMANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 2. KALEPALLI VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. LATE KONDAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. D NO. 4/144, GANGAMMA STREET, KOTHA MADHAVARAM, SIDHOUT MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. JYOTHI VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/o. Subba Reddy, Cultivation, Aged 55 years, R/o. D No. 1/388, Bapanapalli Village, ShakarajuPalli Post, SidhoutMandal, Kadapa District ...RESPONDENT 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.05.2025 passed in I.A. No. 11 of 2025 in A.S. No. 2 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel. 2. The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners/appellants/defendants, and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the original suit. The parties to this civil revision petition hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 3. The subject suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and was decreed, granting permanent injunction in their favour on 16.11.2021 in respect of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the court below in O.S. No. 12 of 2016 dated 16.11.2021, the petitioners/appellants/defendants preferred an Appeal Suit No.2 of 2022 before the Fast Track Court, Rajampet at Badvel. Pending the appeal suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 11 of 2025 in A.S. No. 2 of 2022 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., seeking for permission to file documents procured under the RTI Act, as well as photographs from Google Maps. However, while filing the petition, the petitioners have failed to substantiate the purpose or relevance of the documents which are sought in relation to the appellate court's consideration. The court below rejected the petitioners’ claim by holding as follows: 3 Point: It appears from the record, the present appeal suit is preferred by the petitioners / appellants / defendants aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the learned trial court in O.S.No. 12/2016 dt.16-11-2021. The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and granted permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property, aggrieved by the decree & judgment of the learned trial Court in O.S.No.12/2016 the petitioners herein preferred present appeal . 8. The contention of the petitioner is that after filing of the appeal he thoroughly researched and found some documents and he also applied under R.T.I and downloaded the photos pertaining to the suit site through Google map and therefore the said documents are necessary to prove their case. On the other hand the respondent counsel raised objection and contending that no reasons assigned by the petitioner to receive the additional evidence in the present petition. Further he argued that appears from the contents of affidavit that recently he has taken the photographs as those are related to the suit property and also obtained some information from Mandal Educational Officer and Tahsildar of Sidhout Mandal and filed the same before the Court As seen from the petition the petitioner simply seeking the relief that he applied for information under RTI and also downloaded the photographs pertaining to the suit site through Google map and filed the same along with the Pen drives, except that no proper reason assigned by the petitioner for what purpose he filed the said documents. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent that even the petitioner does not reflect that he intended to adduce the additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. 9 Now it is pertinent to mention Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce 4 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 [414] [(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. 10. Hence, in view of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC the appellate court may receive additional evidence if the appellants satisfies the court that after exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced when the suit was decided against him in view of under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. But in the instant case the contention of the petitioner is that after filing of appeal he thoroughly researched and found the said documents i.e. photographs taken from the Google map and also some information through RTI. Further the petitioner has not stated for what purpose it is relevant to his case. Further it is not the case of the petitioner that after due diligence he could not secure the documents which are mentioned in the petition during pendency of the case before the learned trial court. No grounds 5 assigned by the petitioner within the purview of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. 3. On perusal of the order passed by the court below in I.A. No. 11 of 2025 in A.S. No. 2 of 2022 dated 02.5.2025, it is observed that the petitioners/appellants/defendants even though the interlocutory application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., they did not specifically pray for permission to produce the documents as additional evidence to support their claim in respect of the subject property. Furthermore, it was not contended that non-consideration of the said documents would result in prejudice to their case or lead to forfeiture of their rights. 4. In view of the reasons as stated above, the court below rightly dismissed I.A. No. 11 of 2025 in A.S. No. 2 of 2022 dated 02.05.2025. However, during the hearing of the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants/defendants requested to remand the matter for fresh consideration, with liberty to the petitioners to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. before the court below. 5. Considering the said submission and upon careful examination of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioners to file a fresh application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 clearly setting out the purpose and relevance of each document sought to be produced, along with reasons for the failure to produce the same before the trial court. Upon such filing, the court below is directed to consider the said application afresh filed by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, and 6 to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of fresh application as directed and whichever is earlier. 6. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 22.09.2025 kkllkk 7 640 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P. NO: 2433 of 2025 22.09.2025 klk