L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 12-08-2004, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, narayanpet, in I. A. No. 159 of 2003 in A. S. No. 9 of 2003.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. 31 of 1999 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of houses bearing Nos. 18-106 to 110 of Kosgi village, Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner pleaded the necessary ingredients as to title and possession, in respect of all items of the suit schedule property. The respondents, on the other hand, pleaded their own independent title and possession. After trial, the suit was decreed insofar as it relates to house Nos. 18-106 to 109, but was dismissed in relation to house No. 18-110.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed A. S. No. 9 of 2003, aggrieved by the decree insofar as it denied part of the relief to her. She also filed I. A. No. 159 of 2003, under Order 41 Rule 27 c. P. C. , seeking permission of the Court to file certain documents as additional evidence. These documents included the permission obtained by her father to construct the house bearing No. 18-110, certain tax receipts, and an order passed by the District Panchayat Officer restoring her name in the panchayat records, in relation to that property. The application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the documents were very much with the petitioner when the trial of the suit was in progress, and that she cannot be permitted to file those documents at this stage. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the I. A. on recording a finding that sufficient cause, as required under Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C. , was not shown by the petitioner.

( 4 ) SRI K. Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the set of documents, which are sought to be filed now, were misplaced and they could not be filed during the trial of the suit. He submits that the petitioner being a lady from a village is not conversant with the court procedure and that she had to rely upon other persons in this regard.

( 5 ) SRI Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that receiving of additional evidence at the appellate stage, is not a matter of course, and the party intending to adduce evidence at that stage, has to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that even after exercising due diligence, such evidence could not be adduced before the decree came to be passed. He submits that except making a bald statement that the documents were misplaced, the petitioner did not state any reason to satisfy the Court as the circumstances that prevented her from filing the same before the trial Court.

( 6 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the decree insofar as part of the relief claimed in the suit was denied to her. At the stage of appeal, she filed an application to receive certain documents as additional evidence. The reason pleaded by her was that the said documents were misplaced. The Appellate Court took the view that the reason pleaded by the petitioner is not satisfactory and that she failed to make out a case, as contemplated under Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C.

( 7 ) IT is true that additional evidence cannot be received at the stage of appeal, as a matter of course. The parties are required to plead and prove their cases at the trial. Receiving of additional evidence at a subsequent stage, will have the effect of taking other party by surprise and the appellate Court may have to undertake adjudication of the matter, not confining itself to the evidence and material that was available before the trial Court. Such an eventuality will certainly result in prejudice to the other party. The various Clauses, particularly Clause (aa), of Rule 27 of order 41 C. P. C. , makes it incumbent upon the party proposing to adduce additional evidence to satisfy the Court, as to the circumstances that prevented it from adducing such evidence, during the course of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document