( 1 ) HEARD both Counsel. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the constitution against the order dated 16-11-2004 passed in IA No. 37 of 2004 in A. S. No. 10 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, nandikotkur, Kumool District.

( 2 ) THE grievance expressed in this revision is that the lower Appellate Court erroneously dismissed IA No. 37 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-appellant under order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

( 3 ) THROUGH the said interim application the petitioner being the appellant before the lower Appellate Court sought admission of the particular document to be received as additional evidence. The same was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court after going through the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 cpc. Hence the present revision.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that it is always expedient for the lower Appellate Court to consider applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 cpc. , along with the appeal in order to pronounce judgment in a satisfactory manner.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents contends that when the interim application had been filed it is for the Court to decide on merits and since the lower Appellate Court had exercised its jurisdiction and dismissed the interim application after going through the merits of the case. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the revision.

( 6 ) THE issue raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is no longer res Integra. In State of Rajasthan v. T. N. Sahani and others, (2001) 10 SCC 619, the Supreme Court has observed in para 4 as under:"it may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramaiah v. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526, pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27 (c) that though there might well be cases where even though the Court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the Court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 rule 27 (b) CPC can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. " (emphasis added)

( 7 ) HAVING regard to the observation of the Apex Court referred to above, it is always expedient for the Court to examine the interim application filed under Order 41 rule 27 CPC while hearing the main appeal in order to arrive at a right conclusion and also, if necessary, by taking into consideration the documents so -sought to be received by the Court and filed under order 41 Rule 27 CPC. , and if the Court is of the satisfaction that even without taking into consideration the documents so sought to be received by the Court, a judgment in a satisfactory manner can be rendered, the interim application in that regard can also