SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS review C. M. P. is referred to a Division Bench by Neeladri Rao, J. observing that maintainability of the review petition depends on the question whether additional evidence can be permitted at the stage of second appeal. The learned Judge noticed that on the question whether additional evidence can be admitted at the stage of second appeal the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Venku Reddi v. Pichi Reddi, AIR 1956 Andh Pra 250 is in conflict with the judgment of the Madras High Court in Subba Raja v. Narayana Raja, AIR 1954 Mad 1074 which was delivered prior to 5-7-1954.

( 2 ) THE second appeal arose out of the suit filed for possession of plaint schedule premises. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The second appeal by the 1st defendant was dismissed. Thereafter the review petition was filed by the 1st defendant on the ground that she discovered a new and important evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within her knowledge and so it could not be produced by her at the time the decree was passed in the second appeal.

( 3 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document