( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, who seek to assail the orders in I. A. No. 371 of 2003 in A. S. No. 2 of 2000, dated 23-11-2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, karimnagar district, dismissing their application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 (i) (b) read with Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure, seeking to receive the certified copies of pahanies for the year 1986- 87,1985-86,1984-85,1983-84,1982-83,1981- 82,1980-81,1979-80,1978-79,1977-78,1976- 77, 1975-76, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, holding that the petitioners failed to satisfy that the trial court refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted, if such evidence is not within the knowledge of the petitioners after exercise of due diligence and the court requires for just decision.

( 2 ) A brief narration of facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised herein may be set out.

( 3 ) THE petitioners have filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 585 of 1988 on the file of the Court of district Munsif, Metpalli and the said appeal is pending adjudication before the Senior civil Judge, Jagtial. Petitioners came to know that real entries of the above pahanies are suppressed by the respondent, and therefore, they obtained certified copies of the above pahanies in respect of suit property. After obtaining the certified copies of pahanies, petitioners filed an application to receive the same as additional evidence to disprove the pahanies under Exs. A-3 to A-29 filed by the respondent and for the purpose of bringing the truth to disclose the fraud played by the respondent on the court below and on them.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT filed his counter reiterating that the petitioners under the guise of leading additional evidence they want to fill up lacuna in their evidence, more so, by filing application, petitioners are trying to introduce additional documentary evidence in the appeal. Further the documents sought to be filed by the petitioners were already marked by the court below in a series. There is an inordinate delay of more than twelve years in filing the application to receive the documents in evidence. It is further alleged that the first petitioner is the vao of Koratla village, where the suit land is situated and he is the person behind fabricating the revenue record. Petitioners are not entitled to produce additional evidence in the appellate court unless any of the three contingencies mentioned under order XLI, Rule 27 (1) CPC wherein clause (b) states that additional evidence in appeal can be received only when the appellate court requires any additional document to be produced to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. Petitioners examined d. Ws. 1 to 8 and marked the documents ex. B-1 to B-29. Therefore, the material available on record is sufficient to dispose of the appeal without receiving any additional documentary evidence.

( 5 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances, the learned Senior Civil Judge, jagtial, dismissed the aforesaid application holding that the petitioners are not entitled to adduce additional documentary evidence. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, petitioners filed the present revision.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relied on a judgment of Constitutional Bench of the Apex court in K. Venkataramaiah v. A. Seetharama reddy and others. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in para 19 of the said judgment, it is stated that Rule 27 (1) (b) of order 41 of the Code, which contemplates that the appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause the appellate court may allow such evidence and whereas in para 21 of the said judgment, the learned couns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document