This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 18.08.2010 in I.A.No.711 of 2009 in A.S.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

The petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent against him for recovery of money on the basis of three promissory notes. The suit was dismissed and challenging the same, the respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

In the said appeal, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.711 of 2009 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to permit him to adduce additional evidence by examining his son by name B.Lokeswara Rao as an additional witness on his behalf.

In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the plaintiff contended that his son is the scribe of the last payment endorsement Ex.A.9 dt.29.01.2004 on Ex.A.1 suit promissory note, Ex.A.13 last payment endorsement on Ex.A.2 suit promissory note and Ex.A.17 last payment endorsement on the suit promissory note Ex.A.3; he wrote the said endorsements on 29.01.2004; in February, 2004, he went to Saudi Arabia to work as a Senior Planner in the Production Department of Government of Saudi Arabia; he could not examine him as a witness on his side as he was far away in Saudi Arabia and could not get any leave from his employer to come to India to give evidence in the said suit on his behalf; in spite of exercise of diligence, he could not examine his son as a witness at the time of trial of the suit; and therefore it should be permitted to examine him in the appeal as his witness by way of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C.

The petitioner/defendant filed a counter denying the contentions of the respondent/plaintiff/appellant and contended that the said application itself is not maintainable, as it does not fulfill the conditions set out in Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C.

By order dt.18.08.2010, the said I.A.No.711 of 2009 in A.S.No.14 of 2009 was allowed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. Challenging the same, this Revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant/respondent in A.S.No.14 of 2009.

Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M.Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an application for additional evidence should be decided along with the appeal; in the present case, even though the appeal was not taken up for final hearing, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali had taken up I.A.No.711 of 2009 filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C; paragraphs 6 to 14 of the impugned order indicate that the said Court was also considering the merits of the appeal while considering the application I.A.No.711 of 2009 even though the appeal itself was not taken up for hearing; this is not permissible as held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. T.N.Sahani and others ((2001) 10 SCC 619); in any event, the Court below should not have allowed the said I.A.No.711 of 2009 as the conditions set out in Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. have not been satisfied; no material is placed on record by the respondent to show that his son is employed in Saudi Arabia at the relevant time and could not attend to give evidence before the trial court on behalf of the respondent; the passport or copies thereof have not been filed by the respondent to prima facie show that the son of the respondent had not visited India at all during the trial of the suit; so the order of the Court below is erroneous and unsustainable.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Court had satisfied itself that the evidence of the son of the respondent is essential to prove that the endorsements were made on 29.01.2004 and not on 29.01.2003; although initially by mistake, the scribe had mentioned the year 2003,