COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the legality and correctness of the docket order dated 12.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.574 & 575 of 2024 in A.S.No.62 of 2023 by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Revisionist is the appellant while the respondents are the respondents in the Appeal, whereas defendant and plaintiffs respectively in the suit in O.S.No.588 of 2009.

3. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that one Amudala Mangamma filed the suit vide O.S.No.588 of 2009 for declaration of her right and title over the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs, contending that she along with her husband purchased the plaint schedule property and that her husband executed a Will in her favour bequeathing his half share in the plaint schedule property. She died pending suit. The respondents herein came on record as plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 as Legal Representatives of the deceased sole plaintiffs contending that the sole plaintiff executed Will dated 30.11.2009 in their favour bequeathing the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed the suit upholding the Will propounded by the sole plaintiff further observing that since the deceased plaintiff herself admitted in her evidence about execution of Will in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3, which is not in dispute. The Revisionist preferred appeal vide A.S.No.62 of 2023. In that appeal, the respondents/plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 filed petitions vide I.A.No.574 of 2024 to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and permit them to adduce additional evidence on their behalf for the purpose of marking the registered Will dated 30.11.2009 already available on record. The Revisionist resisted the relief sought in the petitions by filing counter contending that no proper and sufficient reasons were assigned as to why the plaintiffs did not mark the Will during trial before the Trial Court and none of the grounds required to entertain application under Order XLI, Rule-27 CPC are made out and even if such conditions are available, the appellate Court has to set aside the decree and remand the matter to trial Court to take evidence by marking the documents. The learned appellate Court, upon hearing the counsel on record and upon perusing the material available, allowed the petitions. The said orders have been assailed in these Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Inasmuch as both the Civil Revision Petitions stems out of a common order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

5. Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioner and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

6. Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the counters filed before the trial Court, would contend that the respondents did not satisfy any of the conditions envisaged in Clauses (a), (aa) & (b) of Sub Section (1) of Order XLI, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure and though the grounds sought in the applications to reopen and receive additional evidence do not fall within the purview of Order XLI, Rule-27 CPC, the learned appellate Judge, even without assigning any reasons, erroneously allowed the petitions and thus there is improper exercise of jurisdiction and hence the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. He would further contend that even if the learned Appellate Judge satisfies that conditions mentioned in Order-XLI, Rule-27 CPC did exist, he has to set aside the decree and remand the matter to the trial Court for marking the document, taking the evidence and return a finding based on the said document, however, the Appellate Judge instead of following the established procedure, allowed the petitions for recording evidence by appellate Court itself. He would further contend that the applications filed under Order-XLI, Rule-27 should have to be decided along with the appeal in a more satisfactory manner, however the