The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri P Rama Sharana Sharma Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Muhammad Veqar Hussain The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTTCE G.RADHA RANI CIVI L REVI SION PETITI N No.2 745 of 20l9 I ORDER: This civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2019 passed in I'A'No'254 of 2019 in A'S'No'30 of 2018 by the teamed VI Additional District Judge' Siddipet'

2. The petitioner was the appellant in A'S'No'3O of 2018' He filed an application under Xl-l Rute 27 read with Section 151 of CPC to receive certain documents during the pendency of the appeal' The petitioner - appellant was the plaintiff. She filed the suit for injunction against the respondent over the suit schedule Propt:rty.

3. The case of the petitioner - appellant - plaintiff was that during the trial of the suit, the Government of Telangana contemplated for regularization of residential properties basing on possession' Accordingly' the pelitioner applied for the same and the Govemment after enquiry has accorded a 'deed of conveyance', which was duly registered upon her on 10'12'2015' The said deed of conveyance was registered by the Tahsildar' Siddipet (urban) and that she had applied for assessment of municipal tax' and tax was also assessed' She also paid the said tax to the Municipality' as such wanted to bring on record the 2 Dr.GRR, J crP_27 45_2019 deed of conveyance, municipar tax assessment and mutation proceedings before the Appellate Court.

4. The respondent filed counter contending that there was no whisper in the pleadings about the proposed documents. without reference in the pleadings, the documents could not be received. The petitioner ra ed to prove her regal possession against the respondent as on the date of filing of the suit. As such, the trial court dismissed the suit. The proposed documents were subsequent to the date of filing of the suit, as such they were irrelevanr for adjudication of the matter and opposed the petition. 5' The leamed vI Additional District Judge, Siddipet on considering the contentions of both the counsel representing the parties, dismissed the petition.

6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner _ appellant _ plaintiff I preferred this revision.

7. Heard Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma" leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohammed Veqar Hussain, leamed counsel lor the respondent.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submifted that the rower Appellate court failed to consider that the documents filed for consideration in the appeal were relevant. They were only continuation of the previous and continuous possession of the property. No new aspect has been brought on record. The / 3 Dr.GRR" J ctp 2745_2019 above documents rvere crucial and vital for adjudicating the issue in the appeal. Though the documents were dated much later to the suit, but the said documents were issued only after considering the fact that due to the continuous possession of the petitioner much prior to the filing of the suit, they were issued, which would prove the physical possession of the property much prior to the suit, and as on the date of lhc suit and relied upon the judgment of the crstwhile High Court of Andhra l)radesh in Kappa Venkata SubbaRaju v. Emmuri Sreeramulusetty Venkata Subbaiah Setty New Companyr on the aspect that it is well recognized principle of law that procedure is required to help Court in arriving at a proper and just conclusion, and it cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the parties. He further relied upon the judgment of the common High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Phool Chand Jain and Others v. Smt.Jotri Devi and Others2 on the aspect that evidence essential to determine real controversy in suit must. be allowed to be produced. The principles of procedural law are hand maid, to justice. He also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Odisha in Bijay Kumar Banerjee v. Malati Banerjeer on the aspect that the larv is well settled that if a petition under XLI Rule 27 CPC is filed, the Appellate Court may postpone consideration of the said petition till hearing of the appeal and should take up the same at the time ol hearing of the ' 2006 (0) SCJ Onlinc I AP) 596 '2001 (0) SCJ Onlinc (P & H) 1660 '2007 (0) SCJ Online (Ori) 6l 4 Dr.GRR, J up 2745]019 appeal on merits so as to find as to whether the documents and / or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance or bearing in the issues involved. g. Leamed counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the documents filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.254 of 2019 were subsequent to the date of filing of the suit. The revision petitioner in her alfidavit in I.A.No'254 of2019 stated that she was not aware of the importance oithe document, hence, did not inform the counsel on record. It was totally a vague reason, which could not be considered in th€ eyes of law. The petitioner failed to show any valid reason to receive the documents. The documents filed by the petitioner could not be considered in the appeal suit as only the possession as on the date of filing of the suit was only material and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and anothera on the aspect that in a suit filed under Seclion 38 of the Specific Relief Act, possession as on the date of suit was a must for grant of permanent injunction. When the first respondent-plaintiff failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the property as on the date ol the suit, he was not entitled for the decree for permancnt injunction'

9.1. Leamed counsel for the respondent further contended that a party could not produce any additional evidencaat'the appellate stage. order XLI Rule 27 (l) of CPC clearty speaks with regard to the requirements or the '(2020) t9 scc I l e I / 5 Dr.CRR, J crp_27 45.2019 circumstances under which additional petition could be allowed, the petitioner failed to explain as to why she could not produce the said documents before the trial court and. re lied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and anothers.

10. As seen from the record, rhe petitioner - appellant - plaintiff filed the suit for injunction and the said suit was dismissed by the trial court on merits. I l. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, the petitioner _ plaintiff preferred A.S.No.30 of 2018. During the pendency of thc appeal, filed I.A.No.254 of 2019 fbr receipr of documents and additional evidence. order XLI Rule 27 ol CPC clearly states the circumstances under which additional evidence can be allowed.

12. order XLI Rule 27 of cPC deals with production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. It reads as follows:

27. Production ofadditional evidence in Appellate Court: (l) 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, ' 2012 (4) Supreme 585 -l b Dr.CRR, J up'2715_2019 (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. aflcr 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 additionat evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.

13. The l{on'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another (cited supra) alter considering the provisions under XLI Rule 27 of CPC, held that: "25. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not trayel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additionat evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitle4 as of right, to the admission of such evidence' Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion ol.the and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a "ourt judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in ihe rule itself. (Vide: IC Venkataramaiah v. A' Seetharama Reddy & Ors., AIR 196) SC 1526: The Municipal Corporation of Greater ombay v. LalaPancham& Ors" AIR 1965 SC 1008; Soonda Ram &Anr. v. Rameshwaralal a I Dr.G RR, J crp_27 45_2019 ORDER CRP.No.2745 of 2019 _:-_\ 1 :'-'-,' s =: L') a a) ,Ll a * o a I DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 7 4,/ /11 /