The main legal point established is that applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC should be considered along with the appeal and not independently.

1. The appellant in A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore is the revision petitioner in these revisions.

2. The appellant filed I.A.No.30 of 2007 in A.S.No.21 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., to receive certain documents as additional evidence and also filed I.A.No.32 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and also filed I.A.No.45 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., to adduce the additional evidence.

3. The learned appellate Judge dismissed I.A.Nos.30 of 2007 and 45 of 2007 by passing a reasoned order and dismissed I.A.No.32 of 2007 stating that having regard to the dismissal of other applications, the amendment application is also dismissed. Against the same, these revisions are filed.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the lower appellate Court without properly appreciating the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., and the nature of documents adduced by the revision petitioner as additional evidence and reasons stated in the affidavit for non-production of those documents during trial erred in dismissing the applications.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitions filed by the revision petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., is not at all maintainable and the revision petitioner has not satisfied the conditions laid down under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., and hence the order of the lower appellate Court is perfectly valid and also relied upon the Judgement reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 101 (S.Rajagopal Vs. C.M.Armugam and others) and AIR 2001 SC 134 (Mahavir Sing and others Vs. Naresh Chandra and another).

6. In my opinion, the lower appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing of I.A.Nos.30 and 45 of 2007 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., independently without deciding the appeal on merits. It has been laid down by our High Court in the Judgements reported in 1994 (2) Law Weekly 376 (M.Ayyaswami and another Vs. S.P.Ganesan and another), 2003 (3) Law Weekly 547 (Thamburaja and another Vs. Kanakasabai Padayachi) and 1998 (3) Law Weekly 234 that the lower appellate Court shall consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., along with the appeal and that application cannot be tried separately without hearing the appeal on merits. In this regard, the Judgement of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3572 (Gurdev Singh and others Vs. Mehnga Ram and another) is relevant wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"The grievance of the appellants before us is that in an appeal filed by them before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 (b), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the learned Additional District Judge at the final eharing of the appeal wrongly felt that additional evidence was required to produce as requested by the appellants by way of examination of a handwriting expert. The High Court in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C., took the view that the order of the appellate Court could not be sustained. In our view the approach of the High Court in revision at that interim stage when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the learned Additional District Judge was not justified and the High Court should not have interfered with the order which was within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The reason is obvious. The Appellate Court hearing the matter finally could exercise jurisdiction one way or the other under Order XLI, Rule 27 specially clause (b). If the order was wrong on merits, it would always be open for the respondent to challenge the same in accordance with law if an occasion arises to carry the matter in Second Appeal, after an appellate decree is passed. But at this interim stage, the High Court should not have felt itself convinced that the order was without jurisdiction. Only on this short question, without expressing any opinion on the meri