( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and sri L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

( 2 ) SRI Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had brought it to the notice of this Court that on the self same day i. e. on 21-2-2005, in the same application in I. A. No. 4 of 2004 in a. S. No. 7 of 2002, the learned Additional senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, rajampet at Badvel, made two orders and hence, the revision petitioner was constrained to file two C. R. Ps. The learned counsel also would point out that the learned Judge of this court made an order in C. R. P. No. 1023 of 2005, dated 25-4-2005, wherein the impugned order was set aside and the appellate Court was directed to consider the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity cpc ) at the time of disposal of the appeal as to the relevancy of documents on merits and pass appropriate orders. In the light of the same, the learned counsel would maintain that the present C. R. P. also may have to be allowed.

( 3 ) SRI L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents, would maintain that it is peculiar that on the selfsame day, the learned Judge appeared to have made two orders in an application filed in I. A. No. 4 of 2004 in A. S. No. 7 of 2002, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for reception of documents as additional evidence. The learned counsel also made an attempt to show that none of the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, in fact, are satisfied and even otherwise the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the order already passed, no further orders need be passed in the present C. R. P.

( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel.

( 5 ) HERE is a novel situation where on an application filed under Order 41 Rule. 27 of the CPC for reception of additional evidence in l. A. No. 4 of 2004 in A. S. No. 7 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast track Court, Rajampet at Badvel, two orders were made. On careful comparison and scrutiny of the orders, the contentions and the reasons recorded also appear to be slightly different. At para -7 of the order, it was observed:"considered the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire record. The 1st document proposed to be filed by the petitioner is copy of 10 (1) Account for Fasli 1405. As seen from the back side of the said document, it disclosed that the said document was obtained on 17-3-1997. The Judgment in the main suit was pronounced on 14-2-2002. The petitioner did not offer any explanation for not filing the said document, which was obtained by him in the year 1997 before the trial court. Therefore, there is no proper explanation on the part of the petitioner, for filing the document before the appellate Court. The second document is the copy of the proceedings of the R. D. O. Rajampet, dated 10-7-2003 and the third document is the proceedings issued by the M. R. O. , b. Mattam, dated 16-9-2003. Therefore, the said two documents are pertaining subsequent to the date of filing of the main suit as the main suit is filed in the year of 1997. Further more the main suit is filed for the grant of permanent injunction. Hence, these two documents are not relevant for deciding the controversy on one way or other, in view of the proceedings pending before the appellate authority. "

( 6 ) IN para -8 of another order made on the self-same day, it was observed:"the petitioner wants to file the deed of title pass book and pattadar pass book in the name of Bathala Guravaiah as additional evidence on his side. The said pass books in the 1st page containing the date of 25-2-2000 and at the 5th page containing the endorsement that as per the orders passed by the R. D. O. , Rajampet, in r. D. O s Rc/rtc/2071/97 dated 10-7-2003 the pass books are written. They contain the date as 24-4-2004 underneath the signature of the M. R. O. Therefore, the entities (sic. entr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document