The admission of additional evidence in appellate courts is subject to strict criteria under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC; parties must demonstrate due diligence for not presenting evidence at trial.

ORDER :

G.RADHA RANI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.254 of 2019 in A.S.No.30 of 2018 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet.

2. The petitioner was the appellant in A.S.No.30 of 2018. He filed an application under XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC to receive certain documents during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner – appellant was the plaintiff. She filed the suit for injunction against the respondent over the suit schedule property.

3. The case of the petitioner – appellant – plaintiff was that during the trial of the suit, the Government of Telangana contemplated for regularization of residential properties basing on possession. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the same and the Government after enquiry has accorded a ‘deed of conveyance’, which was duly registered upon her on 10.12.2015. The said deed of conveyance was registered by the Tahsildar, Siddipet (urban) and that she had applied for assessment of municipal tax, and tax was also assessed. She also paid the said tax to the Municipality, as such wanted to bring on record the deed of conveyance, municipal tax assessment and mutation proceedings before the Appellate Court.

4. The respondent filed counter contending that there was no whisper in the pleadings about the proposed documents. Without reference in the pleadings, the documents could not be received. The petitioner failed to prove her legal possession against the respondent as on the date of filing of the suit. As such, the trial court dismissed the suit. The proposed documents were subsequent to the date of filing of the suit, as such they were irrelevant for adjudication of the matter and opposed the petition.

5. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet on considering the contentions of both the counsel representing the parties, dismissed the petition.

6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner – appellant – plaintiff preferred this revision.

7. Heard Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohammed Veqar Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Appellate Court failed to consider that the documents filed for consideration in the appeal were relevant. They were only continuation of the previous and continuous possession of the property. No new aspect has been brought on record. The above documents were crucial and vital for adjudicating the issue in the appeal. Though the documents were dated much later to the suit, but the said documents were issued only after considering the fact that due to the continuous possession of the petitioner much prior to the filing of the suit, they were issued, which would prove the physical possession of the property much prior to the suit, and as on the date of the suit and relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kappa Venkata Subbaraju v. Emmuri Sreeramulusetty Venkata Subbaiah Setty New Company , [2006 (0) SCJ Online (AP) 596] on the aspect that it is well recognized principle of law that procedure is required to help Court in arriving at a proper and just conclusion, and it cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the parties. He further relied upon the judgment of the common High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Phool Chand Jain and Others v. Smt.Jotri Devi and Others , [2001 (0) SCJ Online (P & H) 1660] on the aspect that evidence essential to determine real controversy in suit must be allowed to be produced. The principles of procedural law are hand maid, to justice.