IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.634 of 2026 Date: 21.04.2026 Between:

Jeevan Rao Kulkarni and another.

…..Petitioners AND Anil Kumar Kulkarni and eight others.

….Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.176 of 2023 in A.S.No.25 of 2018 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad, wherein the said I.A filed by the petitioners under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C”) seeking to receive certain documents was dismissed.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents sought to be produced, such as original Pattedar Pass Books, Title Deeds, revenue records (Pahanies), family settlement deeds, and electricity bills etc., are essential for fair adjudication of the appeal. It is submitted that the first appellate Court erred in dismissing the subject Interlocutory Application independently, instead of considering the same along with the main appeal. It is further contended that non-production of the said documents before the trial Court was due to bona fide reasons, including ill- health, family bereavements and lack of proper communication with the counsel. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions in State of Rajasthan vs. T.N.Sahani and others, (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 619 and Jatinder Singh and another vs. Mehar Singh and others2 and thus prayed this Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit of the respondent No.1 and submitted that the petitioners have miserably failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of “due diligence” as contemplated under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. It is contended that the documents sought to be produced were admittedly within the knowledge and possession of the petitioners even during the trial, but they neither entered the witness box nor marked any document. It is further submitted that

2 (2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 465

the present application, filed after lapse of several years, is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacunae in their case. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Bolla Ajay Babu vs. Nalla Manikyamma, 2009 SCC Online AP 618 and Lekhraj Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2014 INSC 128= MANU/SC/0155/2014 and thus prayed this Court to dismiss the revision.

5. As seen from the material on record, the petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.17 of 2008, which was partly decreed, and they have preferred A.S.No.25 of 2018. During pendency of the said appeal, after lapse of about five years, the petitioners filed the subject I.A.No.176 of 2023 under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. seeking to adduce additional evidence by producing several documents including revenue records, title deeds and family settlement deed. The first appellate Court, upon detailed consideration, dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 05.02.2026 holding that the petitioners failed to satisfy the conditions stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., particularly with regard to “due diligence”.

6. It is well settled law that the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. is limited and additional evidence can be permitted only in

exceptional circumstances. In T.N.Sahani’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC should be decided along with the appeal. Further, in Jatinder Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that High Court must decide pending applications for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC before disposing of a Second Appeal.

7. At the same time, in Bolla Ajay Babu