Date of reserved for orders : 06.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.08.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010185692026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1086/2026 Between: 1. PULI KOTAIAH,, S/O KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. R/O CHINAKRAKA VILLAGE AND POST, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PALLAPU ANJAIAH, S/O VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O CHINAKRAKA VILLAGE AND POST, JALADANKI-MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE-DISTRICT - 524223 2. PALLAPU PARVATHAMMA, W/O PALLAPU ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O CHINAKRAKA VILLAGE AND POST, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT- 524223. 3. PALLAPU YEDUKONDALU, S/O PALLAPU ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O CHINAKRAKA VILLAGE AND POST, JALADANKI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524223 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to call for the records in AS No. 23/2017 from the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Kavali and look into the legality and propriety or otherwise of maintainability of I.A. 190/2020 under the provisions of 0.41 R.27 CPC before hearing of AS No. 23/2017 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Kavali by allowing the present CRP or else the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in A.S No. 23 of 2017, dated 10.03.2026 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kavali Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA 2. The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above civil revision petition was filed assailing the order dated 10.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2020 in A.S.No.23 of 2017 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kavali. 2. Heard Sri K.S. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri P.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3. 3. The appellant, being the plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.70 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali against the respondents herein, seeking specific performance of the sale agreement dated 23.07.1985 executed by the 1st defendant. On contest, the suit was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 10.08.2017. The plaintiff filed an appeal vide A.S.No.23 of 2017. 4. In the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.190 of 2020 under Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C) to receive certain documents. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents and opposed the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants insisted that the Appellate Court pass an order in I.A.No.190 of 2020 even before hearing the appeal. The Appellate Court, as seen from the docket order, directed the counsel to advance the arguments of I.A. along with the appeal. By a docket order dated 10.03.2026, the appellate court negatived the request made by the counsel and observed as follows: “It is settled law that the IA in the appeal has to be hear along with IA and if the court wants to allow the IA if the documents sought to be received by this court are necessary to dispose the appeal, then only the court receive the documents in IA, or otherwise not. Hence, the request of learned counsel for the petitioner is not considered. The petitioner is directed to present his arguments in this IA along with appeal.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no bar to consider the application individually before hearing the appeal. He would further submit that after deciding the I.A., the appellate court shall consider the relevancy of documents along with the appeal. If the I.A. is dismissed along with the appeal, by assailing reasons, the petitioners who filed such application will remain remediless. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (dead) By Lrs.1 and Gail India Ltd. V. Sales Tax Officer, Gurajat2. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 would submit that an application is filed under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C.; it is a settled law that it will be considered along with the appeal. Learned counsel relied upon Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another3; Athota 1 (2008) 8 SCC 511 2 (2005) 10 SCC 192 3 (2012) 8 SCC 148 Chinnabbai and another v. Suresetty Venkata Ramana4 and Nimmakayala Balakrishnaiah and another v. Nimmakayala Sreenivasulu5. 8. The point for consideration is: “Whether the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC needs to be considered along with the appeal or to be decided individually, before the hearing of the appeal?” 9. The answer to the question is res-integra. 10. The appellate court, while exercising jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., permits the parties to produce the additional evidence, subject to the pre-requirements enumerated in the rule. Normally, the parties in the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence as a matter of right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Venkataramiah v. A. Setharama Reddy6, held that the additional evidence cannot be sought to be introduced as a matter of fact. 11. It is apt to extract Order XLI Rule 27(1) of C.P.C, hereunder: (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. 4 2025 (3) ALD 9 (AP) 5 2020 (1) ALD 203 (AP) 6 AIR 1963 SC 1526 12. The Apex Court in Ibrahim Uddin‟s case considered the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. elaborately held that an 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 concludes that additional evidence was required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. The Apex Court also considered the earlier proceedings and observed as follows: “49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the court. 50. In Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur [(1931) 34 LW 76 : AIR 1931 PC 143] it was held : (LW pp. 86-87) “… The provisions of Section 107, Civil Procedure Code, as elucidated by Order 41 Rule 27, are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the court of appeal. … Under Rule 27, clause (1)(b), it is only where the appellate court „requires‟ it (i.e. finds it needful)…. The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but „when on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent‟. … It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party may move the court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands. Wherever the court adopts this procedure it is bound by Rule 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing and under Rule 29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. … the power so conferred upon the court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised, and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case.” 51. In Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh [1951 SCC 178 : AIR 1951 SC 193] this Court held : (AIR pp. 195-96, paras 7-8) “7. … If the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it was non-existent. … 8. … The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17-8-1942. The appeal was heard on 24-4-1942. There was thus no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court required to be filled up for pronouncing its judgment.” 52. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that an 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 the 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, the 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.” 13. In State of Rajasthan and Another v. Tiloki Nath Sahani and Another7, the Apex Court held that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is to be decided along with the appeal. If the court finds that the document is necessary to pronounce the judgment more satisfactorily, at that stage the Court will consider the application; if not, the same can be dismissed. 14. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chowdappa v. Hanumantharayappa and others8, after considering the relevant precedents in para 12 summarised as follows: “12.1 An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final Judgment. 12.2 The Application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main Appeal on its merits to determine whether the Court “requires” the documents to pronounce Judgment or for any other substantial cause. 12.3 The Appellate Court must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application. If the production of documents is allowed, the Court is obligated to record its reasons for admission. 7 2001 (10) SCC 619 8 2026 SCC online SC 1509 12.4 Before undertaking the exercise of evaluating the additional evidence, the Appellate Court must first examine the party's pleadings to ensure that the foundational case set up supports the introduction of the proposed evidence. 12.5 Dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.” 15. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, no ratio was laid down, except for passing observations. On the other hand, the expression in the judgments referred to supra makes the things more than discernible. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the civil revision petition warranting interference. 16. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 20.08.2026 TVN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1086 OF 2026 Date: 20.08.2026 TVN