V. NEELADRI RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant in S. A. 428/85 is the petitioner in the Review C. M. P. She is D-1 in O. S. 1100/76, Addl. District Munsif, Rajahmundry. The 2nd appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 13-7-1989, This review petition was filed by alleging that she discovered 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 when the decree was passed in this second Appeal. The evidence referred to is a petition dated 12-12-56 filed by ganga Raju, the father of plaintiffs 4 and 5 requesting Gram Panchayat kateru to delete his name from the house tax register and enter the name of d-2 in regard to the plaint schedule house.

( 2 ) ONE of the grounds under which the review can be prayed is the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made (vide Order 47, Rule 1 C. P. C. ). Under Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. , additional evidence can be permitted during the pendency of the first appeal, if the conditions referred to therein exist

( 3 ) RULES of Order 41 shall apply so far as may be to appeals from appellate decrees i. e. , Second Appeals vide Order 42, Rule 1 C. P. C. Second Appeal ties if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, (vide Sec. 100 CP. C. ). If the evidence on record is sufficient, the High court may, in any Second Appeal, determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal, which has not been determined by the lower appellate court or both by the court of first instance and the lower appellate court or which has been wrongly determined by such court or courts by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in Section 100 C. P. C (vide Sec. 103 CP. C ).

( 4 ) ONE view is that additional evidence can be permitted even in Second appeals as Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. is equally applicable in regard to Second Appeal. There is nothing either in S. 103 or in Order 41, Rule 27 CP. C. which excludes the applicability of the latter provision to Second Appeals. The terms of Rule 27 are general in application and in an appropriate case it is open to the High Court in Second Appeal to admit additional evidence. " (vide Goddam Paramasivudu vs. Mulakala Subbanna and Venku Reddy vs. Pichi Reddy ). The other view is that additional evidence in Second Appeal to ascertain question of fact cannot be admitted (vide Subba Raju vs. Narayana Raja, rarukutti vs. Mamad and another, Bollapragada Garu Narayana Rao vs. Rama lokshmamma, Ramchandra Pandurang Sathe vs. Krishnaji Vithal Joski, Sashi kanta vs. Jagannath Namadas, Ranglal vs. Lilawati, Waft Muhammad vs. Md. Baksh, Surya Raja and Jasubha Manubha vs. Rainish Sapubha.

( 5 ) THE judgment delivered on 31-3-54 by a learned Single Judge of Madras high Court was reported as Subbaraja vs. Narayana Raja (3 supra ). The decision in Venku Reddy vs. Pichi Reddy (2 supra) is a judgment delivered by learned single Judge of Andhra High Court. In M. Subbarayudu vs. State a Full bench of Andhra High Court held that Andhra High Court and the Madras high Court prior to 5-7-1954 are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and even if the two High Courts are not deemed to be courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, andhra High Court shall follow the Madras decision on the principle of stare decisis in the same manner that the Madras High Court follows its own decisions and subject to the same limitations. The judgment in Subbaraja vs. Narayana Raja (3 supra) was delivered on 31-3-54 and thus prior to 5-7-54. The decision in Venku Reddy vs. Pichi Reddy (2 supra) is in conflict with the judgment in Subba Raja vs. Narayana Raja (3 supra ). While in the latter a Full bench of the Madras High Court Bollapragada Garu Narayana Raw vs. Rama lakshmamma (5 supra) wherein a Division Bench judg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document