The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents/ Defendants No. 1 & 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Hon',ble Principal District Judge Jayashankar Bhupalpally in l.A No 267 of 2024 in AS.No.1 '15 ot 2022 dt.2911112024, pending disposal of the C.R.P Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHASHANK GARIGE Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following Order: I l I t I I I I I i ',tl HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4o,0s oF 2024 ORDER: This Civit Revision Petition is l-rled assailing the o':der dated 29.11.2024 passed in I.A'No.267 of 2024 in A'S'No'115 of 2022 (Old A.S.No. i81 of 2018) by the Principal District Judge, Jayashankar BhuPalPalIY.

2. Heard Siri Shashank Garige, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, there is no repl esentation on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material placed on record.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he 1as filed a suitino.S.No.lzlof20loonthefileofthePrincipalJuniorCivil Judge, Parkal (for short, the trial Court'), for eviction arLd recovery of arrears of rent from the respondents and the trial Court uide judgment dated. 15.06.2016 dismissed the said suit Aplgrieved by the judgment dated 15.06.2O 16, 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, ZZ ot VOYS anci 215 of 2023 to receive documents anti the same 2 were pending for adjudication. It deciding the applications f-rled by LNA, J CR.P.No.l005 of 2024 is contended that without the petitioner to receive documents, the first appellate Court posted the matter on 2g.1O.2O24 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 uid'e ordet 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 arrd 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 hrst adjudicate the applications liled by the petitioner to receive the documents and thereafter, take up the appeal for hearing. -_ i l I I I I 3 LNA, J C.R.P No.400s oJ 2024

5. Perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.7 | of 2OlO for eviction and recovery of arrr:ars of rent from the respondents, who are none other than the brollers of the petitioner and the said suit was dismissed by the tria.l Court on

15.06.2016 after elaborate triat and with a specific observation that the petit:Loner has failed to prove that the properfy was self acquired propert5r and that the respondents have al'so right in property. Aglpieved by the sarne, the petitioner has hled A.S.No.181 ol'2018 before the first appellate Court irnd it was subsequently numbered as A.S.No.llS of 2022 and when the matter was coming up for arguments, the petitioner has; filed three applications l.r:., I.A.No.215 of 2023 to receive property tax receipts daterl 1L.O3.2O23, 20.O7.2024, I.A.No.72 <:f 2023 to receive ownership certificate dated 10.08.2009 by rvay of additional evidence and I.A.No. 1 652 of 2O2l to recei ve certihed 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, wh.ich are pending for adjudication.

6. It is also evident that earlier, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos)3l 0l'"2023, 175 0f 2024 and 247 0f 2024 and, the same LNA, J C.P.P.No-1005 of 2024 were disposed of on 73.09.2023 aljld 17.1O.2O24 and the appeal 4 6i was posted for judgment.

7. At that stage, the petitioner frled present I.A.No.267 of 2024 seeking to reopen the appeal suit and the hrst 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 1I.O3.2O23, 2O.O7.2O23 and has specifrcally 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 hled to receive documents in appeal can also be decided along with the appeal arld on examination, if documents sought to be hled are found relevant and crucial for proper adjudication of appeal, the ;l I I I I l I I I L / LNA, J C.R.I'.No.4005 of 2024 Appellate Court may allow such documents as provided under 5 Order XLI Rule 27, which reads as under:

27. Production of odditional euidence in Appellate Court.-(l) TLrc parties to on appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional eui.d.ence, uh.ether oral or doanmentary, in the Ap.pellate Court. But if - (a) thez Court from uhose decree the appeal is prefe,.red has refused to admit euidentn which ouoht \ to ha;let been admitted, or 2[(aa) the partA seeking to produce additiot nl euideru,:e, establi.shes that notuithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such euidence LUos not uithit't his knowledge or could not, after the exerctse of due diligence, be produed bg him at the tirne u.then the decree appealed against was passed, orl (b) the Appellate Court requires anA docltment to be produ:.ced or ang witness to be examined to enoble it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substant:oL cause" the Appel'lctte Court maA alloto such euidence or docurrtent to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) lL1tereuer additional euidence is allowed to be produced bg an Appellate Court, tle Court slnll record the reason for i.ts admission.

10. Admittei[11'2, the documents, which are nolv solrght to be placed on record, are subsequent to judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.71 of 2OlO and moreover, the first appellate Court has made categoric:al observation that the documer-rts u,ould be u t-.' ,-*.r.*r.n*r"lli/n considered while disposing the appeal. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, there are no merits in the present Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 1 . Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand clo MAJI sd/- K. ASSISTANT REG TRAR ,ITRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER Io rn" prin"ipar District Judge, Jayashankar Bhuparpaty, Jayashankar , Bi'J38il' Siil'Sho.ro* K GAR, c E, Advocate roP ucl 3. Two CD CoPies Kul/gh \+ oB 1 PE f4 16. (. 2 B FEB 2U25 ?, .l {+ "I oaretr (n a HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.4005 of 2O24 , '+ D ISIVI ISS I :',IC T H I,] ([' I I'I L REVISION PETITION a( \ "w